*        •••••••        • 

»••        ••      ••• 


•  •  • 


«       t  t 


•    •  *     *.  t 


•    •   •  •  •    r 


•  '.    '  .' 


Siberian  Exiles. 


Frontispiece 


PIONEERS  OF  THE 
RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 


BY 


DR.    ANGELO   S.    RAPPOPORT 


NEW  YORK 

BRENTANO'S 

1919 


COPY  Af>nED 
OhiGiriAL  TO  BE 
RtTAiNED 


PRINTED    IN   GREAT   BRITAIN 
T 


•         * 


PREFACE 

Par  Celestin  Demblon, 

DeputS  de   Liege,    Professeur    aux    Universitis   de 

Bruxelles  et  Rennes 

It  is  the  hour  for  souls  ! 
Elizabeth  Browniistg  ("  Aurora  Leigh"). 

QuAND  mon  ami  le  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport 
voulait  bien  me  demander  une  preface  pour  The 
Pioneers  of  the  Russian  Revolution,  j'en  fus  non 
moins  surpris  qu'heureux.  Surpris  de  devoir 
apporter  de  I'eau  a  la  riviere  :  qu'ajouterait  ma 
prose  a  la  nouvelle  oeuvre  et  a  la  renommee  d'un 
ecrivain  depuis  longtemps  deja  eonnu  par  des 
livres  nombreux. 

Mais  je  fus  heureux,  en  lisant  son  manuscrit,  de 
pouvoir  communier  une  fois  de  plus  dans  ce  monde 
enchante  de  I'histoire  socialiste  qui  fut,  avec  les 
lettres  et  les  arts,  le  ravissement  de  ma  vie.  Toute 
ma  jeunesse  et  ses  ardentes  illusions  sont  revenues 
m'envclopper,  plus  delicieuses  que  jamais,  comme 
un  transport  magique !  Comment  remercier  le 
Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  de  m'avoir  a  ce  point 
rendu  ce  que  Baudelaire  appelle  "  les  heures  de 
visitation  "  ?  Mais  si  son  livre  m'a  replonge  dans 
une  fontaine  de  Jouvence,  ce  n'est  pas  un  Lethe 
qui  ne  laisse  que  la  memoire  du  plaisir  :    serait- 


vi  PREFACE 

il  juste  et  souhaitable  d'ailleurs  qu'on  oubliat 
d'indicibles  souff ranees  pour  n'en  garder  que  le 
fruit  ?  La  foi  de  toute  ma  vie  m'est  r^apparue, 
ravivee  k  travers  la  double  vision  horrible  des 
maux  qu'a  soufferts  la  grande  Russie  de  Nicolas 
Tourgeniev,  de  Dostoievski,  d'Alexandre  Herzen, 
de  Lavrov,  de  Michel  Bakounine,  de  Tscherny- 
shevski,  de  Mikhailov,  de  Tolstoi  et  de  tant  d'autres 
— et  h  travers  la  desesperante  tragedie  que  le  nionde 
traverse  a  cette  heure. 

Desesperant  si  Ton  ne  voyait  qu'elle.  Les 
epreuves  subies  par  les  r^volutionnaires  russes  ont 
parfois  et6  horribles,  je  repute  le  mot ;  mais  elles 
n*incitaient  pas  au  decouragement — loin  de  1^  ! 
Un  penseur  a  dit  que  I'histoire  interdit  de  dese- 
sperer  ;  et  ce  fut  toujours  le  sentiment  de  I'auteur 
de  ces  lignes.  Qu'on  lui  permette  de  rappeler 
qu'il  n'a  pas  recule  non  plus  devant  la  persecution  : 
proscrit  de  longues  annees  dans  sa  propre  patrie, 
pour  le  crime  de  1' avoir  revee  plus  heureuse  et  plus 
belle,  et  mieux  cherie  dans  le  mirage  de  I'universelle 
solidarite,  il  fut  en  outre  peu  aime  de  ce  chef 
meme  par  maints  tard  venus  a  fausses  convictions 
ravageant  sans  vergogne  la  moisson  qui  avait  si 
durement  fait  lever  pour  tous  !  II  n'en  parlerait 
meme  pas,  s'il  ne  s'agissait  que^  de  lui.  Gloire  a 
eertaines  dupes  !  .  .  .  L'apostolat  et  la  philosophic 
veritables  requirerent  d'imperturbables  indulgences 
— I'on  sait  dans  quels  cas  le  silence  est  grand, 
puisque  chacun  agit  en  somme  par  de  lointaines 
procurations.  .  .  .  Sans  doute,  si  nous  avions  assez 
de  grandeur  d'ame,  perspicacity,  d'^nergie  et  de 
d^licatesse,  nous  devrions  encore  demander  pardon 
des  maux  que  Ton  nous  fait ;  mais  ceux-memes 
qui   doivent   se   rejouir   avcc   m61ancolie   de   leur 


PREFACE  vii 

destin^e  et  qu'une  amertume  trop  ^goi'ste  n'a  jamais 
trouble,  dehor  dent  aujourd'hui  d'amertumes  parcc 
qu'il  ne  s'agit  plus  d'eux  exclusivement.  A  qui 
la  respecte,  il  est  meme  interdit  de  rappeler  a 
d'autres  que  "runion  saeree  "  n'a  rien  de  commun 
avec  la  trahison  sournoise  et  de  bon  rapport.  .  .  . 
Interdit  avant  la  fin  des  hostilites  I 

En  I'attendant,  quelle  apre  consolation  de  revivre 
une  fois  de  plus  le  reve  de  sa  jeunesse  I  Le  livre 
du  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  m'a  cause  une  double 
joie  melancolique.  J'ai  revu  les  images  aimees 
de  ma  vie  d'intimites  et  de  luttes  au  vieux  pays  de 
Li^ge,  Wallonie,  dans  la  Belgique  entiere ;  j'ai 
revu  dans  leur  prestige  habituel  les  cheres  ombres 
de  Morelly,  de  Mably,  de  Rousseaux,  de  Babeuf, 
de  St.  Simon,  d'Owen,  de  Fourier,  de  Cabet,  de 
Proudhon,  de  Bakounine  et  de  Lassalle,  de  Benoit 
Malon  et  de  maints  autres  ;  et,  j'ai  souffert — soit 
dit  sans  nulle  intention  de  reproche  ! — de  n'y  avoir 
pu  voir  se  lever  aussi,  dans  leurs  aureoles  familieres 
et  dans  un  monde  de  souvenirs,  les  ombres  de 
I'admirable  et  cher  Cesar  De  Pape,  dont  le  fils 
vient  de  tomber  sur  le  sol  beige  qu'il  n'avait  pas 
fui  quoi  qu'il  ne  fut  pas  mandataire  public,  de 
Cesar  De  Pape,  le  pere  illustre  du  socialisme  beige 
et  I'un  des  peres  de  la  premiere  Internationale,  de 
Cesar  De  Pape,  a  qui  Malon  lui-meme  dedie  en 
termes  si  flatteusement  significatifs  son  Socialism 
Integral ;  d'Edmond  Von  Beveren,  I'aimant  apotre 
de  Gand,  createur  avec  Anseele  et  les  autres  de 
I'incomparable  Co-operative  Le  Vooruit,  de  I'athlete 
bruxellois  Jean  Volders,  d' Oscar  Beck  et  de  Joseph 
Demoulin,  ces  dignes  figures  liegoises  dont  j'ai 
ecrit  la  vie,  du  noble  et  savant  Hector  Denis,  qui 
jeta  sur  le  Parlement  beige  un  ^clat  sublime  de 


viii  PREFACE 

1894  a  1913,  de  Jaur^s  et  d'Edouard  Vaillant.  .  .  . 
D'autres  encore  ! 

Mais  puisque  j'evoque  surtout  ici  les  pures 
memoires  recentes  de  notre  infortunee  et  glorieuse 
Belgique,  si  etrangement  meconnue  encore,  bien 
que  I'horrible  invasion  I'ait  surprise  en  plein  age 
d'or  litteraire,  je  dois  saluer  aussi  une  figure  geante, 
d'une  originalite  profonde,  ne  tenant  que  par 
certains  cotes  aux  idees  des  precedents,  bien 
qu'il  ait  dit  que  "  la  society  moderne  porte  le 
socialisme  dans  ses  flancs  et  que  de  gr^  ou  de 
force  il  faudra  qu'elle  accouche,"  mais  le  premier 
orateur  qu'avec  Alphonse  de  Lamartine  ait  eu 
I'Europe  au  dix-neuvi^me  si^cle  tout  entier,  et, 
faut-il  le  dire  ?  le  seul  grand  parmi  tant  de 
remarquables  qu'ait  jamais  eu  la  Belgique  :  Paul 
Janson,  le  colosse  pathetique  et  foudroyant  aux 
inimitables  accents  qu'il  faut  mettre  a  c6t6  de 
Bossuet  et  de  Mirabeau,  de  meme  que  Rubens  a 
cote  de  Michel-Ange  et  de  Titien.  .  .  . 

Comme  celui  d'Auguste,  notre  age  d'or  possMe 
un  Ciceron  ! 

Telle  est  dans  le  domaine  social,  I'^mouvante 
lignee  qu'indirectement  ou  directement  me  rappelle 
le  livre  du  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  !  J' en  viens 
maintenant  a  la  seconde  joie  melancolique  qu'il 
m'a  donnee :  reconforter  par  le  tableau  de 
I'heroisme  des  revolutionnaires  russes.  En  fut-il 
jamais  de  pareil  ?  L'Europe  occidentale  n'ignorait 
certes  pas  I'histoire  de  ce  martyrologe  depuis  les 
jours  de  la  "  grande "  Catherine  jusqu'a  nous, 
mais  il  est  bien  peu  de  personnes  k  qui  le  livre  du 
Dr.  Rappoport  n'apprendra  beaucoup  de  choses 
encore.  Quel  cortege  de  souffrances  1  quelle 
abnegation  !    quelle  tenacite  ! 


PREFACE  ix 

Et — par  contraste — quelle  lache  et  criminelle 
indifference  des  nations  dites  civilisees  k  I'egard  de 
tels  martyrs  !  Souvent  j'ai  du  suspendre  ma 
lecture,  n'ayant  plus  la  force  de  continuer.  La 
seule  consolation  que  j'aie  eprouvee  c'est  de 
n'avoir  du  moins  jamais  ete  complice  par  mon 
silence  de  ces  horreurs — et  de  les  avoir  tant  de 
fois  fletries  dans  des  meetings  de  protestation 
organises  dans  ce  but  unique  a  cette  deja  vieille 
Populaire  de  Liege  qu'avec  une  trentaine  d'amis 
je  fondais  en  1887,  ou  bien  k  Verviers,  dans  le 
Hainaut,  a  Bruxelles,  ailleurs  encore !  La  con- 
science est  tout.  Que  devient  la  vie  sans  elle  ? 
Dut-on  rester  presque  seul,  comme  trop  souvent 
en  ces  jours  infames,  il  en  faut  pas  craindre  de 
souffrir  toujours  davantage,  pourvu  qu'on  n'ait 
pas  la  honte  d'une  prudence  ou  d'une  faiblesse 
indignes  :  aucun  effort  d'ideal  n'est  perdu  pour 
I'avenir  !  Tlus  les  ames  nobles  souffrent  a  cette 
heure,  plus  leurs  souff ranees  sont  du  moins 
exemptes  du  remords  d'avoir  une  responsabilit^ 
dans  r horrible  cataclysme — ou  d'avoir  pouss^,  de 
loin,  des  infortun^s  a  peine  sortis  de  I'enfance 
dans  les  champs  de  carnage  !  .  .  .  Ah  !  qu'a  cette 
heure  oh.  les  ames  nobles  et  sinc^res  se  melent  plus 
que  jamais  dans  les  angoisses  de  la  tormente 
tragique,  qu'il  soit  permis,  devant  le  public  de  cette 
Angleterre  qu'il  a  toujours  aimee  k  la  passion,  qu'il 
soit  permis  a  quelqu'un  qui  represent e  depuis 
vingt-quatre  ans  au  Parlement  beige  Liege  la  ville- 
martyre,  qu'il  a  de  son  mieux  soutenue  pendant 
les  jours  du  siege  effroyable,  d'apporter  un  temoign- 
age  de  plus  en  faveur  des  sentiments  eleves  de 
la  conscience  russe  !  Depuis  une  trentaine  d'annees, 
il    a    vu    les   nombreuses    et    successives    colonies 


X  PREFACE 

d'^tudiants  slaves  inscrits  k  1' University  de  Li^ge, 
se  presser  avec  ardeur  dans  nos  meetings  de  soli- 
darit6  eomme  au  sein  de  nos  immenses  manifesta- 
tions k  travels  la  vieille  cit^  de  Charlemagne, 
d'Henri  de  Dinant,  de  Regnier,  de  Bassenge,  de 
Lombard,  de  Gerard  de  Lairesse,  de  Carlier,  de 
Gr6try  et  de  C^sar  Frank  ;  il  en  a  chaque  ann6e 
retrouve  beaucoup  d'autres  k  I'Universite  Nouvelle 
de  Bruxelles  dont  certains  comptent  aujourd'hui 
dans  les  rangs  r6volutionnaire&  de  leur  patrie : 
les  nombreux  souvenirs  que  ces  etudiants  et 
etudiantes  ont  laisses  dans  cette  capitale  de  la 
Wallonie,  qui  est  en  meme  temps  la  capitale  indus- 
trielle  de  la  Belgique,  et  que  I'auteur  de  ces  lignes 
ne  peut  6voquer  aujourd'hui  de  sang  froid,  sont 
comme  autant  d'apparitions  d'attendrissement  et 
de  reconfort !  Nul  plus  que  lui  n'a  foi  dans  la 
Russie.  Qu'il  lui  soit  permis  de  rappeler  a  ce 
propos  la  veritable  crise  d'enthusiasme  qui  saisit 
Li^ge,  ville  essentiellement  musicale,  pour  les  com- 
positeurs russes  des  1886 :  les  nombreux  concerts 
organises  et  1' execution  retentissante  k  la  salle  de 
fetes  de  I'Emulation  (I'auteur  present)  de  la 
symphonic  Dans  les  Steppes  d'Alexandre  Borofine 
— qui  mourut,  comme  on  sait,  dans  notre  ville. 
Delicieuses  et  poignantes  visions  qui  me  reviennent 
melees  de  toutes  parts  dans  ce  qu'un  po^te  anglais 
appelle  le  charme  fatal  du  pass^  !  Helas  !  je  dois 
me  contenir  et,  pour  une  autre  raison  qu' Hamlet, 
m' eerier  avec  lui :  "  But  break,  my  heart ;  for  I 
must  hold  my  tongue  !  " 

Je  ne  veux  pas  resumer  ici  le  tableau  que  trace 
Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport.  Meme  courte,  se  serait 
une  superf6tation — qui  affaiblirait  ce  que  chacun 
va  lire. 


PREFACE  xi 

Mais  quelques  points  m6ritent  d'etre  signal6s. 

D'abord — pour  laisser  quant  de  judicieuses 
reflexions  et  des  jugemcnts  de  veritable  historien 
auxquels  tous  les  lecteurs  souscriront,  par  exemple 
aux  pages  5  ^  8,  10  et  11,  17  et  18,  dans  le  seul 
premier  chapitre  ! — je  me  permets  d'attirer  tout 
specialement  I'attention  sur  1' exactitude  avec 
laquelle  Dr.  Rappoport  parle  k  la  page  27  de 
rinternationale  "sans  etre  un  collectiviste  ni  un 
socialiste ;  bien  qu'il  admette  maints  principes  de 
la  doctrine  socialiste." 

Autre  point  digne  de  la  plus  minutieuse  atten- 
tion du  lecteur  k  I'heure  oti  se  d^roulent  en  Russie 
des  evenements  que  saisit  d'autant  moins  le  public 
occidental  que  I'existence  de  la  censure  n'a  pas 
peu  contribu^  h  les  obscurcir  encore  :  en  lisant 
la  fin  du  chapitre  II  k  partir  de  la  page  33,  on 
saisira  avec  toute  la  nettete  desirable  la  profonde 
difference  existant  entre  la  Revolution  russe  de 
1917  et  la  Revolution  fran9aise  de  1789.  Nul 
n'etait  mieux  qualifi^  pour  la  resumer  que  le  Dr. 
Angelo  S.  Rappoport  qui  connait  a  fond  la  France 
et  la  Russie — ce  resume  n'est-il  pas  d'ailleurs 
la  suite  logique  et  le  couronnement  elargi  de 
r excellent  precis.  History  of  Russia,  qu'il  nous 
avait  dej^  donn^  en  1907.  Les  assimilations — ou 
les  paranoics  a  la  Plutarque — qu'on  a  lus  parfois 
dans  nos  journaux,  ne  meritent  trop  souvent  qu'un 
sourire.  L'echee  relatif  de  1905  impliquait  la 
chute  du  Tzarisme  de  1917,  quels  que  soient  les 
exces  momentanes  qui  en  resultent.  Je  me 
rappelle  ce  que  me  dis  tranquillement  en  1905  a 
rUniversite  Nouvelle  de  Bruxelles  I'illustre  et 
regrette  geographe  qui  avait  nom  Elisee  Reclus  : 
"  C'est  la  plus  grande  revolution  du  monde.  —  La 


xii  PREFACE 

plus  profonde,  r^pondis-je.  —  C'est  la  meme  chose 
dans  ma  pensee,"  riposta  Reclus.  Les  pages  du  Dr. 
Angelo  S.  Rappoport  font  toucher  du  doigt  la 
verite  de  cette  double  observation. 

Je  voudrais  signaler  encore  les  pages  consacrees 
k  Lavrov  et  a  Bakounine,  en  exprimant  le  voeu 
que  I'auteur  des  Piofieers  of  the  Russian  Revo- 
lution elargisse  le  champ  dont  il  s'est  empare 
avec  tant  de  maitrise,  en  nous  donnant  une  etude 
complementaire  sur  le  role  social  de  Nicolas  Gogol, 
de  Tourguenev,  de  Theodore  Dostoievski,  de 
Leon  Tolstoi,  de  Maxime  Gorki,  etc.  Ce  serait 
une  sorte  de  pendant  a  I'ouvrage  exclusivement 
litteraire  ou  peu  s'en  faut  de  Melchior  de  Vogue. 
J'ai  tou jours  ete  et  je  reste  un  fanatique  intran- 
sigeant  de  la  doctrine  de  I'art ;  mais  enfin  puisque 
les  grands  romanciers  russes  ont  voulu  confondre 
plus  ou  moins  le  domaine  litteraire  avec  le  social, 
j'aime  naturellement  a  bien  voir  en  quoi  ils  ont 
influence  revolution  politique — ou  du  moins  en 
quoi  ils  Font  exprimee,  Goethe  disant  avec  raison, 
pense  je  :  ''  L'homme  croit  qu'il  pousse  et  il  est 
pousse." 

Oui,  je  voudrais  que  le  Dr.  A.  S.  Rappoport 
s'ancrat  par  droit  de  conquete  dans  le  domaine 
entier  qu'il  peut  desormais  explorer  mieux  que 
personne — et  qu'on  put  lui  appliquer  ici  ce  que 
mon  cher  Savage  Landor  dit  si  bien  du  grand 
Geoffrey  Chaucer  : 

"  No  man  hath  walk'd  along  our  roads  with  step 
So  active,  so  inquiring  eye,  or  tongue 
So  varied  in  discourse." 

Nul  passage  du  livre  du  Dr.  Rappoport  ne  m'a 
frappe  que  les  pages  finales,  si  neuves  je  crois  et  si 


PREFACE  xiii 

remarquables,  qu'il  a  consacrees  aux  Juifs  de 
Russie  et  d'ailleurs.  J'y  applaudis  d'autant  plus 
qu'en  1903,  dans  une  brochure  publiee  en  Belgique, 
je  disais  toute  mon  admiration  pour  la  petite  race 
fameuse  qui  nous  a  donne  Baruch  Spinoza,  le  bien- 
aime  Jacques  ou  Jacob  Ruysdael,  Henri  Heine, 
Felix  Mendelssohn,  et  tant  d'autres — et  dont  a 
Liege  un  des  plus  genereux  representants,  homme 
d'une  simplicite  admirable,  M.  Montefiore-Levi, 
qui  fut  jusqu'a  sa  mort  assez  recente  le  plus  popu- 
laire  et  le  plus  venere  de  nos  senateurs,  et  qui  nous 
vint  d'Angleterre  vers  1880,  a  fonde,  comme  une 
seconde  Universite,  son  vaste  Institut  electro- 
technique  offert  a  I'Etat,  sans  compter  nombre 
d'institutions  de  bienfaisance  dans  la  region 
entiere.  L'histoire  anglaise  a  d'ailleurs  enregistre 
les  actes  de  munificence  d'autres  membres  de  la 
famille  de  M.  Montefiore-Levi — et  Ton  verra  dans 
le  present  livre  quelle  fut  la  fiere  attitude  d'un 
Rothschild  en  face  du  tzar  Alexandre  II  en  faveur 
d' Alexandre  Herzen. 

Les  pages  finales,  developpees  et  fort  penetrantes, 
couronnent  dignement  le  beau  livre  du  Dr.  Angelo 
S.  Rappoport.  J' en  voudrais  discuter  un  seul 
point,  si  la  place  ne  me  faisait  defaut.  Bien  que 
I'auteur  de  Pioneers  of  the  Russian  Revolution 
proteste  avec  autant  de  raison  que  de  sincerite  de 
son  respect  pour  Shakespeare — c'est  a  dire  aux 
yeux  du  signataire  de  ces  lignes  pour  Lord  Rutland- 
Shakespeare — je  crois  que  I'immortel  poete  du 
Marchand  de  Venise  qui  commenya  ce  chef-d'ceuvre 
en  1597  loin  de  sa  patrie,  pendant  son  sejour  a 
r Universite  de  Padoue,  n'a  pas  ete  aussi  severe, 
au  fond  que  le  pense  Dr.  Rappoport,  I'epoque  etant 
donnee,  pour  ce  terrible  Shylock  qui  rappelle  sans 


xiv  PREFACE 

doute  rinfortune  R.  Lopez  execute  k  Londres  en 
1594,  et  auquel  se  mele  un  ressouvenir  du  Barabas 
dress6  en  1589  par  Christophe  Marlowe  dans  son 
Juif  de  Malte.  Oui,  qu'on  songe  k  I'epoque,  et 
qu'on  relise  de  pr^s  I'une  des  merveilles  du  theatre 
de  "  Shakespeare " — et  qu'on  n'oubhe  point  la 
charmante  figure  de  Jessica,  la  fille  de  Shylock: 
on  saisira  tout  au  moins  bien  des  circonstances 
att6nuantes  I  .  .  .  Mais  je  m'arr^te.  Une  dis- 
cussion historico-litteraire  entrainerait  trop  loin, 
et  hors  du  sujet.  Au  fond,  il  ne  s'agit  d'ailleurs 
ici  que  d'un  detail.  Ce  serait  abuser  de  la  patience 
du  lecteur  que  d'allonger  encore,  pour  prendre 
une  image  a  Lewis  Theobald,  que  les  violentes 
attaques  de  Pope  n'empechent  point  d'avoir  6te 
le  plus  consciencieux  peut-etre  des  commentateurs 
Shakespeariens,  que  d'allonger  encore  cet  etroit 
couloir  obscur  qui  m^ne  a  I'^difice  lumineux — oh 
chacun  pouvait  fort  bien  entrer  de  plein  pied  ; 
mais  I'auteur  de  ce  livre,  a  qui  je  dois  de  ce  chef 
des  remerciements,  a  voulu  qu'en  ces  jours  d'inter- 
nationale  communion  tragique,  un  Beige  put 
proclamer,  si  faiblement  que  ce  soit,  son  culte  ardent 
pour  la  race  et  le  pays  de  naissance  du  Dr.  A.  S. 
Rappoport. 

Celestin  Demblon. 

Paeis, 
20  Mai  1918. 


TRANSLATION   OF   PREFACE 

By  Celi^stin  Demblon 

DepuU  de  Liege,  Professeur  aux  Universites  de 
Bruxelles  et  Rennes 

It  is  the  hour  for  souls  ! 

Elizabeth  Browning  ("  Aurora  Leigh  "). 

When  my  friend  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  asked  me 
to  write  a  preface  to  The  Pioneers  of  the  Russian 
Revolution,  my  delight  was  almost  equalled  by  my 
surprise.  Surprise  that  I  should  be  asked  to  carry 
water  to  the  river  ;  to  add  my  prose  to  the  latest  work, 
and  to  the  renown,  of  this  well-known  writer,  author 
of  so  many  successful  books. 

But  I  was  happy  when  I  read  his  manuscript,  happy 
to  be  able  once  more  to  enter  that  enchanted  world  of 
socialistic  history  which,  with  literature  and  the  arts, 
has  always  been  the  great  pleasure  of  my  life.  My 
youth,  with  all  its  ardent  illusions,  more  gracious  even 
than  before,  seemed  to  sweep  over  me  again,  like  a 
magic  transformation.  How  can  I  thank  Dr.  Angelo 
S.  Rappoport  for  having  thus  given  me  what  Baudelaire 
called  *'  an  hour  of  visitation  "  ?  But  if  his  book 
plunged  me  once  again  into  the  fountain  of  youth,  it 
does  not  act  on  one  as  do  the  waters  of  Lethe  and 
leave  behind  it  only  the  memory  of  pleasure  :  would 
it  in  any  case  be  desirable  or  just  that  one  should 
forget  such  indescribable  sufferings  and  merely  remem- 
ber their  result,  their  fruit  ?  The  faith  of  my  life 
again  loomed  up  before  me,  revivified  by  the  terrible 

XV 


xvi         TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE 

picture  of  the  sorrows  suffered  by  the  Russia  of 
Nicholas  Tourgeniev,  Dostoievski,  Alexander  Herzen, 
Lavrov,  Michel  Bakounine,  Tschernyshevski,  Mikh- 
ailov,  Tolstoi  and  of  many  others — and  of  the  dis- 
heartening tragedy  through  which  the  world  is  at 
present  passing. 

Disheartening,  if  one's  view  is  solely  bounded  by 
it.  The  sufferings  endured  by  the  Russian  revolu- 
tionaries were  sometimes  terrible,  I  repeat  the  word, 
but  they  did  not  tend  to  discouragement — far  from  it. 
A  thinker  has  said  that  history  forbids  despair ;  such 
is  also  the  belief  of  the  writer  of  these  lines.  He  may 
be  permitted  to  remember  that  he  also  did  not  flinch 
under  persecution  :  outlawed  for  many  years  in  his 
own  country  for  the  crime  of  visualising  it  happier, 
more  desirable  and  more  honoured  in  the  mirage  of 
international  solidarity,  on  this  account  also  he  was 
but  little  liked  by  the  adherents  of  the  later  false 
tenets  that  ravaged,  without  shame,  the  harvest  that 
had  been  so  hardly  sown  for  all.  He  would  not  even 
speak  of  it,  if  it  affected  only  himself.  All  hail  to 
certain  dupes  !  .  .  . 

True  apostleship  and  philosophy  demand  imper- 
turbable patience — one  knows  that  in  some  cases 
silence  is  the  great  thing,  since  each  acts,  in  effect, 
upon  such  distant  procurations.  .  .  .  Doubtless  if  we 
were  sufficiently  great  of  soul  and  had  enough  per- 
spicacity, energy  and  tact,  we  would  demand  pardon 
of  the  evils  done  to  us  ;  but  even  those  who  should 
rejoice,  though  sadly,  at  their  fate  and  whom  a  too 
egotistical  bitterness  has  never  troubled,  to-day  over- 
flow with  bitterness,  because  it  is  no  longer  a  question 
of  themselves  alone.  It  is  even  forbidden  to  remind 
others  that  the  "  union  sacree  "  has  nothing  in  common 
with  crafty,  productive  treachery. . .  .  Forbidden  before 
the  close  of  hostilities  ! 

In  the  meantime,  what  a  bitter  consolation  to  re-live 
again    the    dream    of   one's    youth !     Dr.    Angelo    S. 


TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE        xvii 

Rappoport's  book  has  given  me  a  double  melancholic 
joy.  I  have  seen  again  the  dearly  loved  pictures  of 
my  life  of  friendship  and  struggles  in  the  old  country 
of  Liege,  Walloon,  in  all  Belgium  ;  I  have  seen  again 
the  dear  shades,  with  all  their  accustomed  fascination, 
of  Mably,  Rousseau,  Babeuf,  St.  Simon,  Owen,  Feurier, 
Cabet,  Proudhon,  Bakounine  and  Lassalle,  of  Benoit 
Malon  and  of  many  others  ;  and  I  have  suffered — it  is 
said  without  any  inflection  of  reproach  ! — at  not  being 
able  to  see  also  in  this  world  of  memories  the  shades 
of  the  dear  and  admirable  Caesar  de  Pape,  whose  son 
has  just  fallen  on  Belgian  soil  which  he  had  not 
abandoned  though  he  was  not  a  public  proxy,  of 
Caesar  de  Pape,  the  illustrious  father  of  Belgian  social- 
ism and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  original  Inter- 
nationale, of  Caesar  de  Pape  to  whom  Malon  himself 
dedicated  in  such  significant  flattering  terms  his 
Integral  Socialism ;  of  Edmund  von  Beveren,  the 
devoted  adherent  of  Gand,  founder,  with  Anseele  and 
others,  of  the  incomparable  Co-operative  Le  Vooruit, 
of  the  athletic  Jean  Volders  of  Brussels,  of  Oscar  Beck 
and  Joseph  Demoulin,  those  worthy  sons  of  Liege 
whose  lives  I  have  written,  of  the  noble  and  learned 
Hector  Denis,  who  gave  to  the  Belgian  Parliament  a 
wonderful  brilliancy  from  1894  to  1913,  of  Jaur^s  and 
Edouard  Vaillant.  .  .  .  Many  others  still ! 

But  since  here  I  am  only  evoking  recent  memories 
of  our  unfortunate  and  glorious  Belgium,  still  so 
strangely  misunderstood,  although  the  horrible  in- 
vasion surprised  her  in  the  days  of  her  golden  age  of 
literature,  I  must  also  hail  a  giant  gifted  with  a 
profound  originality  who  only  on  certain  points  holds 
to  the  ideas  of  his  predecessors,  although  he  has  said 
that  "  modern  society  carries  socialism  in  her  womb 
and  either  by  agreement  or  by  force  she  will  be  com- 
pelled to  give  it  birth."  The  finest  orator,  with 
Alphonse  de  Lamartine,  that  Europe  has  had  during 
the  entire  nineteenth  century  and,  is  it  necessary  to 

b 


xviii       TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE 

say  it  ?  the  only  great  man,  among  so  many  remark- 
able men,  that  Belgium  has  ever  had  :  Paul  Janson, 
the  pathetic  and  fulminating  Colossus  of  the  inimitable 
speech  whom  one  must  rank  with  Bossuet  and  Mirabeau 
just  as  one  ranks  Rubens  with  Michel  Angelo  and 
Titian.  .  .  . 

Like  that  of  Augustus,  our  golden  age  possesses  a 
Cicero  ! 

Such  are,  in  the  sociological  domain,  the  moving 
memories  that,  directly  or  indirectly,  Dr.  Angelo  S. 
Rappoport's  book  brings  back  to  my  mind.  I  come 
now  to  the  second  melancholy  joy  that  he  has  given 
me  :  consolation  from  the  picture  of  the  heroism  of 
the  Russian  revolutionaries.  Was  there  ever  anything 
like  it  ?  Occidental  Europe  was  certainly  not  ignorant 
of  the  history  of  this  martyrology  from  the  days  of 
the  "  great  "  Catherine  until  our  time,  but  there  are 
very  few  people  who  will  not  learn  a  great  deal  from 
Dr.  Rappoport's  book.  What  a  procession  of  suffer- 
ing !     What  abnegation  !     What  tenacity  ! 

And  by  contrast,  what  cowardly  and  criminal  in- 
difference the  so-called  civilised  nations  showed  such 
martjn's  !  Often  I  was  compelled  to  stop  reading,  not 
having  the  power  to  continue  !  My  only  consolation 
was  that,  at  least,  I  have  never  by  my  silence  been  a 
party  to  these  horrors,  but  have  many,  many 
times  spoken  against  them  at  meetings  of  protest, 
organised  for  this  sole  purpose,  at  the  now  old  Populaire 
of  Liege  which,  with  the  aid  of  thirty  friends,  I  founded 
in  1887,  or  at  Verviers,  Hainaut,  Brussels  and  else- 
where. The  conscience  is  everything  !  What  would 
life  become  without  it  ?  Even  if  one  must  stand  prac- 
tically alone,  as  too  often  happens  in  these  infamous 
days,  one  must  not  fear  to  suffer  more  and  more,  pro- 
vided always  that  one  has  not  the  shame  of  unworthy 
prudence  and  weakness  :  no  struggle  for  the  ideal  is 
lost  for  the  future  !  The  more  noble  souls  suffer  to-day, 
the   more  free  are  their  sufferings  from  the  remorse 


TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE         xix 

of  having  been  in  any  way  responsible  for  the  terrible 
cataclysm — or  of  having,  even  indirectly,  thrust  the 
poor  lads,  hardly  out  of  their  adolescence,  into  the 
fields  of  carnage  !  .  .  .  Ah,  at  this  hour,  when  all  noble 
and  sincere  souls  suffer  more  deeply  than  ever  the 
anguish  of  the  tragic  storm,  it  may  be  permitted  one 
who  has  always  loved  England  passionately,  one  who 
for  twenty-four  years  represented  in  the  Belgian 
Parliament  the  martyr-city  of  Liege,  which  he  also  did 
his  best  to  sustain  and  enhearten  during  the  awful 
days  of  the  siege,  to  bear  witness  before  the  English 
public  to  the  high  ideal  of  the  Russian  conscience. 
For  thirty  years  he  has  seen  numerous  and  successive 
colonies  of  Slav  students  at  the  University  of  Liege 
ardently  take  part  in  our  meetings  on  solidarity,  as 
also  in  our  immense  manifestations  in  the  old  city  of 
Charlemagne,  Henri  de  Dinant,  Regnier,  Bassenge, 
Lombard,  Gerard  de  Lairesse,  Carlier,  Gretry  and 
of  Cesar  Frank  :  and  each  year  he  came  across  many 
others  at  the  New  University  of  Brussels,  several  of 
whom  now  hold  high  positions  in  the  ranks  of  the 
revolutionaries  in  their  country  :  the  many  memories 
of  these  boy  and  girl  students  in  the  Walloon  capital 
(it  is  also  the  industrial  capital  of  Belgium),  which  the 
writer  of  these  lines  cannot  to-day  recall  without 
emotion,  are  like  so  many  apparitions  of  compassion 
and  consolation.  No  one  has  greater  faith  in  Russia 
than  he  !  It  may  be  permitted  in  this  connection, 
to  recall  the  veritable  orgy  of  enthusiasm  for  the 
Russian  composers  that  swept  Liege,  essentially  a 
musical  city,  in  1886  ;  the  numerous  concerts  organ- 
ised and  the  wonderful  playing  in  the  festival  hall  of 
the  Emulation,  in  the  presence  of  its  composer,  of 
the  symphony  In  the  Steppes,  by  Alexander  Borofine 
— who  died,  as  is  well  known,  in  this  city.  Delightful 
and  poignant  memories  that  come  back  to  me,  mingled 
with  what  an  English  poet  calls  the  fatal  charm  of 
the  past !     Helas,  I  must  restrain  myself  and,  though 


XX  TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE 

for  a  different  cause,  say  with  Hamlet :  "  But  break, 
my  heart  j   for  I  must  hold  my  tongue." 

I  do  not  wish  to  recapitulate  here  the  picture  of 
events  with  which  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  has  dealt. 
No  matter  how  short,  it  would  be  an  excrescence — that 
would  weaken  a  book  everyone  will  desire  to  read. 

But  several  points  deserve  to  be  noted.  Firstly, 
apart  from  the  many  judicious  reflections  and  truly 
historical  judgments  with  which  all  readers  will  agree, 
for  example  on  pages  5-8,  10  and  11,  17  and  18,  in  the 
first  chapter  alone — I  take  upon  myself  to  call  special 
attention  to  the  exactitude  with  which  Dr.  Rappoport 
speaks,  on  page  27,  of  the  tenets  of  Internationalism  : 
"  I  am  neither  a  collectivist  nor  a  socialist,  even  though 
I  approve  of  many  of  the  principles  of  the  socialistic 
doctrines." 

Another  point  worthy  of  the  reader's  close  attention, 
especially  to-day  when  events  are  .taking  place  in 
Russia  that  the  occidental  public  will  find  the  less  easy 
to  understand  now  that  the  existence  of  the  censorship 
has  tended  to  obscure  them  :  after  reading  the  con- 
clusion of  chapter  II,  from  page  83,  anyone  will  under- 
stand, with  all  desirable  clearness,  the  profound 
difference  that  exists  between  the  Russian  Revolution 
of  1917  and  the  French  Revolution  of  1789. 

No  one  was  better  qualified  to  write  this  review  than 
Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport,  who  knows  both  France 
and  Russia  so  thoroughly.  Again,  is  not  this  book 
the  logical  sequel  to,  and  the  crown  in  an  extended 
form,  of  that  excellent  Short  History  of  Russia  which  he 
gave  us  in  1907  ?  The  comparisons,  or  the  parallels 
a  la  Plutarch,  that  one  reads  now  and  then  in  the 
papers  too  often  evoke  nothing  but  a  smile.  The 
relative  failure  of  1905  involved  the  fall  of  Tsarism  in 
1917,  whatever  were  the  momentary  resulting  extremes. 
I  remember  well  what  the  illustrious  and  sincerely 
regretted  geographer  Elisee  Reclus  quite  calmly  said 
to  me  at  the  New  University  of  Brussels  in  1905  : 


TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE         xxi 

"  This  is  the  greatest  revolution  the  world  has  ever 
seen  !  "  "  The  most  profound,"  I  answered.  "It  is 
the  same  thing  as  I  see  it,"  he  replied.  The  book  of 
Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  proves  the  truth  of  these 
remarks. 

I  would  also  draw  attention  to  the  pages  devoted 
to  Lavrov  and  Bakounine,  and  at  the  same  time  express 
my  hope  that  the  author  of  The  Pioneers  of  the  Russian 
Revolution  will  enlarge  the  field  of  his  operations,  whieh 
he  handles  with  such  mastery  and  skill,  and  give  us 
a  complementary  study  of  the  social  work  of  Nicolas 
Gogol,  Tourguenev,  Theodore  Dostoievski,  Leon 
Tolstoi,  Maxim  Gorki,  etc.  I  have  always  been,  and 
shall  be  always,  an  uncompromising  fanatic  regarding 
the  doctrines  of  art,  but  since  the  great  Russian  novelists 
have  deliberately  more  or  less  intermingled  the  literary 
with  the  social,  naturally  I  like  to  see  how  they  have 
influenced  the  political  evolution — or  at  least  how  they 
have  expressed  it,  for  I  agree  with  Goethe  that  "  Man 
believes  he  pushes,  but  is  himself  pushed." 

Yes,  I  should  like  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport  to  firmly 
take  possession,  by  right  of  conquest,  of  that  entire 
domain  which  he  can  explore  better  than  anyone  else, 
for  one  can  well  apply  to  him  the  words  my  dear 
Savage  Landor  spoke  of  the  great  Geoffrey  Chaucer  : 

"  No  man  hath  walk'd  along  our  roada  with  step 
So  active,  so  inquiring  eye,  or  tongue 
So  varied  in  discourse." 

No  passage  in  Dr.  Rappoport's  book  struck  me  mor^ 
forcibly  than  his  final  pages ;  they  seemed  to  me  so 
original,  so  remarkable,  I  appreciated  them  the  more 
since  in  a  pamphlet  published  in  1903  I  expressed 
my  admiration  of  the  famous  little  race  that  has  given 
us  Baruch  Spinoza,  the  well-loved  Jacques  or  Jacob 
Ruysdael,  Heinrich  Heine,  Felix  Mendelssohn  and  so 
many  others  ;  and  at  Li^ge  one  of  its  most  generous 
representatives,  M.  Montefiore-Levi,  a  man  of  great 


xxii        TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE 

singleness  of  purpose,  who  until  his  comparatively 
recent  death  was  one  of  the  most  popular  and  most 
respected  of  our  senators ;  who  came  to  us  from 
England  about  1880  and  founded,  among  numerous 
other  benevolent  institutions  spread  throughout  the 
entire  region,  his  vast  Electro-technical  Institute  as 
a  second  university  which  he  offered  to  the  State. 
England  also  has  recorded  many  generous  gifts 
on  the  part  of  other  members  of  the  family  of  M. 
Montefiore-Levi,  and  in  this  book  one  can  read  of  the 
proud  attitude  taken  by  a  Rothschild  towards  Tsar 
Alexander  II  on  behalf  of  Alexander  Herzen. 

The  final  pages,  well  thought  out  and  deeply  moving, 
crown  worthily  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport's  fine  book. 
I  would  dispute  but  one  point  if  my  space  permits. 
Though  the  author  of  The  Pioneers  of  the  Russian 
Revolution  proclaims  with  as  much  reason  as  sincerity 
his  respect  for  Shakespeare — that  is  to  say,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  writer  of  these  lines.  Lord  Rutland- 
Shakespeare — I  believe  that  the  immortal  poet  of 
The  Merchant  of  Venice^  who  began  that  masterpiece 
far  from  his  own  country,  during  his  sojourn  at  the 
University  of  Padua,  was  not  in  reality  as  severe  as 
Dr.  Rappoport  thinks,  when  you  consider  the  epoch 
in  which  it  was  written,  on  the  terrible  Shylock,  who, 
doubtless,  was  modelled  on  the  unfortunate  R.  Lopez, 
executed  in  London  in  1594,  mingled  with  memories 
of  the  Barabbas  drawn  in  1589  by  Christopher  Mar- 
lowe in  his  Jew  of  Malta.  Yes,  when  one  thinks  of 
that  epoch  and  re-reads  one  of  the  marvels  of  Shake- 
speare— and  one  does  not  forget  the  charming  figure  of 
Jessica,  Shylock's  daughter — one  will  realise  more  or 
less  various  attenuating  circumstances. 

But  I  must  close.  An  historical-literary  discussion 
would  lead  one  too  far  and  too  wide  of  one's  subject. 
In  reality  also,  here  it  is  but  a  detail.  It  would  be 
abusing  the  patience  of  the  reader  to  continue,  to 
borrow  an   idea  from  Lewis  Theobald,  who,  despite 


TRANSLATION  OF  PREFACE       xxiii 

the  violent  attacks  of  Pope,  was  perhaps  the  most 
conscientious  of  Shakespearian  commentators,  to 
continue  along  this  narrow,  obscure  path  that  leads  to 
the  luminous  edifice,  where  everyone  can  easily  and 
equally  enter  ;  but  the  author  of  this  book,  to  whom  I 
owe  many  thanks,  desired  in  these  days  of  tragic  in- 
ternational communion  that  a  Belgian  should  proclaim, 
poorly  it  may  be,  his  ardent  sympathy  with  the  race 
and  country  of  birth  of  Dr.  Angelo  S.  Rappoport. 

C:6l]6stin  Demblon. 

PaBI9, 

May  20,  1918. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I 

PAGE 

Paris  and  Petrograd      .         .         .         .         1 


CHAPTER    II 

Paris  and  Petrograd  (continued)      .         .       14 

CHAPTER    III 
The  Spirit  of  Revolt      ....       42 

CHAPTER    IV 
The  Decembrists     .....       62 

CHAPTER    V 

The  Fourteenth  of  December         .         .       86 

CHAPTER    VI 

The  Triumph  or  Autocracy    .         .         .118 

XXV 


xxvi  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    VII 

PAQB 

LlTTl^RATEURS,  PHILOSOPHERS,  AND  SOCIOLO- 
GISTS   135 


CHAPTER    VIII 

Philosophers  and  Sociologists  (continued)  152 

CHAPTER    IX 
Peaceful  Propaganda     ....     179 

CHAPTER    X 

Reaction  and  Terrorism         .         .         .     203 

CHAPTER    XI 

The  Jews  as  Pioneers  of  the  Russian 

Revolution        .         .         .         .         .228 

CHAPTER    XII 

Israel's  Cry  for  Justice         •         .         .     253 

Bibliography  ......     277 

Index       .......     279 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 


Siberian  Exiles    . 

Vassiliy,  Prince  of  Moscow 

Tsar  Michael  Romanov 

Tsar  Peter  the  Great 

Tsar  Paul  I  .         .         . 

Michael  Speranski 

Death  of  Alexander  I 

Tsar  Nicholas  I   . 

Vera  Figner 

Tsar  Alexander  II    Monument    (by 
kolsky)  .... 

H.  Lopatin    .... 

Michael  Bakunin 

Social  Democrats  in  the  First  Duma 

Catherine  Bereshkovskaya  . 

Peter  Lavrov 

Maxime  Gorky 


Frontispiece 

FACINQ  PAGE 

16 
82 

48 
64 
64 
80 
96 
96 


Anto- 


128 
144 
144 
144 
160 
160 
160 


xxvn 


xxvii       LIST    OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 

Plekhanov 160 

Karl  Marx  .......  176 

The  Arrival  of  Political  Prisoners  (after  a 

DRAWING   BY  MaDAME  MaNYA  GoUREVITSH)  192 

The  Fortress   of   Schluesselburg  (after  a 

drawing  by  Madame  Manya  Gourevitsh)  208 

Schluesselburg,  the  Church        .         .         .224 

Catherine  II  at  the  Time  of  the  French 

Revolution     ......  240 

Madame  Wolkenstein  .....  256 

Gregory  Gershouni       .....  256 


PIONEERS  OF 
THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

CHAPTER    I 
PARIS    AND    PETROGRAD 

Evolution  and  Revolution 

Numerous  comparisons  and  parallels  have  been 
drawn  between  the  French  Revolutions  of  1789 
and  1793  and  the  Russian  upheaval — ^not  only  of 
1917  but  also  of  1905.  In  my  opinion,  however,  all 
these  parallels,  at  the  best,  are  merely  superficial. 
The  French  and  the  Russian  Revolutions  have  only 
this  in  common — ^that  they  effected  a  change. 
And  this  result  they  share  with  all  other  revolu- 
tions. But  when  one  considers  the  ideas  struggling 
in  the  background  of  these  changes,  the  deeper 
causes  underlying  the  upheavals,  their  psychology 
and  tendencies,  one  realises  that  the  French  Revolu- 
tions of  1789  and  1793  differ  widely  from  the 
Russian  of  1917,  both  in  cause  and  effect.  I 
deliberately  say  1917,  for  the  movement  of  1905  in 
Russia  cannot  scientifically  be  called  a  revolution. 
Of  course  there  was  an  attempt  to  bring  about  one, 
but  a  mere  attempt  to  bring  about  changes  is  not 
a  revolution. 


2     \      THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

What  is  a  Revolution,  and  what  are  the 
manifestations — natural,  religious,  political,  social, 
literary,  etc. — to  which  the  name  of  "  revolution  " 
may  justly  be  applied  ?  "  Revolutions,"  writes 
a  modern  sociologist,  "are  changes,  either  at- 
tempted or  realised  by  force,  in  the  constitution 
of  societies."  ^  This  conception  of  the  idea  of 
revolution,  opposed  as  it  is  to  the  definitions  given 
by  more  ancient  economists  and  sociologists,  such 
as  Proudhon,  Chateaubriand,  John  Stuart  Mill, 
Bluntschli,  Reclus  and  others,  seems  to  me  to  be 
erroneous.  An  attempt  which  has  failed,  which  has 
not  been  realised,  cannot  be  considered  a  positive 
quantity  and  is  hardly  to  be  compared  with  a  trans- 
formation, or  a  change,  which  is  a  j ait- accompli. 
Thus  many  attempts,  accompanied  by  violence, 
many  political  troubles,  which  fail  and  effect  no 
change  whatsoever,  are  mere  insurrections,  revolts, 
but  not  revolutions.  In  a  word,  a  revolution  is  a 
*'  change,  a  radical  transformation."  Thus  the 
movements  of  1789  and  1917  were  revolutions,  but 
those  of  June  1848  and  March  1871  were  not. 

"  A  revolution  is  a  change  of  government 
brought  about  by  force,"  wrote  John  Stuart  Mill 
in  his  letter  of  October  14th,  1872,  addressed  to 
the  Committee  of  the  International  Working 
Men's  Association.*  If,  however,  by  revolution  we 
understand  an  accomplished  fact,  a  transforma- 
tion, a  radical  change,  such  a  change  need  not 
always  be  accompanied  by  violence.  Indeed,  one 
of  the  many  erroneous  ideas  still  prevalent,  not  only 
among  the  masses,  but  also  among  economists  and 
sociologists,  is  the  belief  that  a  revolution  must 

*  Cf.  Bauer,  Essai  sur  les  Revolutions,  Paris,  1908,  p.  11. 
^  See  Block,  Dictionnalre  de  Politique,  a. v.  Revolution. 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  8 

necessarily  be  accompanied  by  bombs,  dynamite, 
bloodshed  and  violence  of  all  sorts.  Thus,  John 
Stuart  Mill  considered  violence  as  a  sine  qua  non 
of  revolution,  and  many  modern  authors  do  not 
seem  able  to  conceive  a  revolution,  political  or 
social,  without  violence  and  the  employment  of 
armed  force.  To  this  idea  1  cannot  subscribe, 
for  radical,  far-reaching  changes  can  be  effected 
without  any  form  of  violence. 

Again,  it  is  not  usually  the  revolutionary  who  is 
anxious  to  use  violence  ;  he  is  compelled  to  do  so 
by  the  counter  revolution,  by  the  opposition  of 
those  who  are  adverse  to  any  form  of  change,  by 
those  who  employ  armed  force  to  quell  any  attempts 
at  change.  The  violence  accompanying  revolu- 
tions is  not  usually  the  fault  of  the  revolutionaries, 
of  the  liberals,  men  eager  for  innovation  and 
amelioration,  but  of  the  opposing  conservative 
classes  who  are  anxious  to  hold  the  power  they 
have  usurped,  and  therefore  call  to  their  aid 
traditionalism,  conservatism,  order  and  law.  But 
the  world  has  witnessed  many  revolutions,  many 
radical  changes  which  have  been  accomplished  in 
a  peaceful  manner ;  long-existing  ideas  and  con- 
ceptions have  been  uprooted,  though  they  were 
consecrated  by  tradition  and  time,  though  men  had 
grown  accustomed  to  look  upon  them  as  impreg- 
nable, as  the  citadels  of  all  human  belief,  as  im- 
mutable institutions.  For  a  day  always  comes 
when  man  laughs  at  the  idols  he  has  created,  has 
taught  himself  to  adore  and  to  venerate,  and  then 
— they  crumble  and  fall  to  the  earth. 

These  are  true  revolutions,  for  they  radically 
change  human  thought  and  convictions.  Need 
they    necessarily    be    accompanied    by    violence  ? 


4  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Need  bloodshed  and  bomb- throwing  be  their 
corollaries  ?  Were  not  Archimedes  and  Newton, 
Galilei  and  Copernic,  Darwin  and  Edison,  Watt 
and  Arkwright  revolutionary  in  their  teaching 
and  inventions  ?  They  revolutionised  society  and 
its  conceptions.  Christianity  and  Buddhism  have 
wrought  the  greatest  change  in  the  domain  of 
thought  and  religious  conceptions — they  have 
revolutionised  humanity,  altering  and  shaping  the 
conduct  and  aims  of  the  greater  portion  of  the 
human  race.  Yet  neither  the  teachings  of  Chris- 
tianity nor  of  Buddhism  harbour  any  ideas  of 
violence. 

I  admit  that  certain  revolutions  have  meant 
violence  and  bloodshed,  and  have  led  to  much 
useless  destruction,  but  that  was  not  the  fault 
of  the  teaching  of  the  revolutionaries,  but  the 
result  of  the  stubbornness  of  the  opponents  of  the 
new  doctrine,  of  their  misoneism,  self-interest  and 
egoism.  No ;  political  or  social  revolutions  do  not 
need  to  be  accompanied  by  violence  and  blood- 
shed. If  those  who  have  usurped  the  political 
power  would  freely  abandon  it,  if  the  privileged 
classes  would  recognise  the  justice  of  the  claims  of 
the  poor  and  disinherited,  there  would  be  no  need 
of  violence  to  bring  about  political  or  social  changes. 

But  unfortunately  the  authorities  in  power,  the 
privileged  classes  who  have  usurped  political  or 
economic  supremacy,  stand  to  lose  by  change  ;  it 
is  to  their  interest  to  cling  to  the  old  institutions, 
to  a  state  of  things  so  advantageous  to  themselves, 
and  therefore  they  so  strenuously  oppose  all  inno- 
vations and  revolutions,  with  all  the  forces  at 
their  command.  The  natural  result  is  that  the 
adherents   of  new  ideas,    of  any  radical  change, 


PARIS   AND   PETROGRAD  5 

much  against  their  will,  are  compelled  to  use  force 
to  break  the  stubborn  resistance  of  the  usurpers. 
This  explains  the  frequent  bloodshed  and  terrorism 
that  precede  or  accompany  political  and  social 
revolutions.  In  this  respect,  of  course,  the  French 
Revolutions  of  1789  and  1793  and  the  Russian 
upheaval  of  1917  have  something  in  common  : 
there  were,  and  are,  many  social  groups  and  classes 
who  would  lose  by  a  transference  of  political 
power,  by  a  social  levelling,  and  are,  therefore, 
bound  to  offer  open  or  secret  resistance. 

If  the  Russian  Revolution  has  so  far  been 
accompanied  by  less  bloodshed  than  that  of  1789, 
it  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  revolutionaries  in 
Russia  were  better  organised  than  were  their 
prototypes  of  1789,  that  they  counted  among 
their  ranks  more  social  groups  ready  to  make  a 
clean  sweep  than  was  the  case  in  France,  and 
that  those  who  had  the  power  in  their  hands  in 
Russia  judged  it  useless  to  ofier  resistance.  But 
the  Russian  Revolution  is  still  in  a  state  of  being, 
of  becoming,  and  I  am  afraid  that  it  will  not 
be  carried  to  a  successful  issue  without  violence, 
bloodshed  and  terrorism.  In  fact,  I  see  it 
coming ;  and  if  a  period  of  terror  follows  in  Russia, 
it  will  only  be  natural,  however  much  to  be  deplored. 

This  brings  me  to  another  point  which  the  French 
and  the  Russian  Revolutions  share  in  common  : 
the  fact  that  they  both  were  the  outcome  of  his- 
torical development  and  slov/  evolution.  Here 
again  I  venture  to  contradict  the  idea  that  a 
revolution,  any  revolution,  political,  social  or 
otherwise,  is  a  sudden  upheaval,  a  saltus  mortale, 
a  catastrophe  standing  in  direct  opposition  to 
evolution,  a  negation  of  the  eternal  laws  of  nature. 


6  THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

In  my  opinion  both  the  French  Revolution  of  1789 
and  the  Russian  upheaval  of  1917  are  the  cul- 
minating points  of  an  historical  evolution,  the  con- 
summation of  causes  accumulated  in  the  course  of 
centuries,  the  visible  manifestations  of  the  spirit 
of  revolt  dormant  in  the  nation.  A  revolution  is 
not  opposed  to  an  evolution,  but  is  the  effect  of 
the  latter.  Modern  geology  has  abandoned  the 
catastrophic  idea  and  accepts  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion ;  but,  for  all  that,  it  does  not  deny  the  existence 
of  volcanic  eruptions.  Subterranean  forces  accu- 
mulate slowly,  gradually,  invisibly,  but  once  they 
have  reached  a  certain  degree,  they  explode. 

Take  another  instance  among  natural  phenomena, 
the  birth  of  the  child.  It  develops  slowly,  legally, 
but  it  comes  into  the  world  in  a  revolutionary 
manner.  ^  And  what  is  true  of  nature  is  also  true 
of  historical  developments.  Just  as  tempests  and 
volcanic  eruptions  do  not  exclude,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  are  the  result  of  slow  evolutions,  so 
political  and  social  revolutions  are  the  normal 
result,  the  fatal,  irresistible  moments,  in  the  long 
process  of  historical  development ;  they  are  a 
crisis  and  a  goal  of  a  social  evolution. 

Political  and  social  revolutions  do  not  come  like 
thieves  in  the  night,  like  something  unexpected. 
They  are  not  the  result  of  immediate,  trivial,  super- 
ficial events,  but  of  far-reaching  accumulated 
causes.  They  are  the  outcome  of  a  state  of  things, 
full  of  contradictions  and  antagonisms,  of  a  clash 
of  interests.  They  are  closely  connected  with  the 
old  order  of  things  which  the  revolution  destroys. 
P'or  each  historical  period  is  the  effect  of  a  pre- 
ceding epoch,  just  as  it  is  the  cause  of  future  events, 

1  C£.  Kautsky,  Die  Sociale  Revolution. 


PARIS  AND  PETROGRAD  7 

and  to-day  carries  with  it  the  germs  of  the  morrow. 
Each  generation  is  the  father  of  the  one  succeeding 
it,  and  each  historical  period  carries  in  it  the  seeds 
of  a  new  one.  Clear-sighted  men  have  always 
been  able  to  see  the  signs  of  approaching  revolu- 
tions ;  to  them  they  were  never  sudden  and 
catastrophic,  but  fatal  and  inevitable.  Neither 
nature  nor  history  know  any  miracles.  For  what 
indeed  is  a  miracle  ?  It  is  a  fact  or  a  manifes- 
tation the  hidden  causes  of  which  escape  the  human 
eye  and  understanding.  A  revolution  is  the  visible 
effect  of  many  causes  accumulated,  it  is  the  crisis 
which  has  necessarily  been  preceded  by  a  fermen- 
tation, visible  or  invisible. 

Now,  political  and  social  revolutions  are  the 
result  of  accumulated  ideas  and  sentiments  of 
discontent,  of  antagonism,  contradiction  and  a 
growing  feeling  of  justice.  In  this  latter  respect, 
the  feeling  of  justice,  revolutions  differ  from  insur- 
rections and  revolts  which,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  prove  futile  and  effect  no  change  whatever. 
The  slave  who  is  not  animated  by  a  sense  of 
justice,  but  merely  by  a  feeling  of  envy,  is  not 
thirsting  for  liberty  and  equality ;  he  merely 
wishes  to  become  master  and  enslave,  in  his  turn, 
his  master  of  yesterday.  His  revolt  is  destructive, 
whilst  a  real  revolution  must  carry  in  it  construe-, 
tive  elements  as  well.  The  slave  is  not  fighting 
for  liberty  and  justice  per  se,  but  for  the  power 
which  he  is  anxious  to  wrest  from  his  master.  He 
is  animated  by  a  spirit  of  revenge.  Real  revolu- 
tionaries are  not. 

Quite  different  are  the  revolutions  which  are  the 
result  of  historical  development  and  in  which  men 
are  anxious  to  shake  off  the  shackles  of  thraldom, 


8  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

not  in  revenge,  not  with  a  view  to  enslave  and 
tyrannise  the  powerful  and  mighty  of  yesterday, 
but  in  order  to  make  men  equal :  all  men,  the 
masters  as  well  as  the  slaves.  The  revolt  of  the 
slaves,  therefore,  is  only  an  artificial  movement, 
whilst  a  great  and  lasting  revolution  is  the  result 
of  historical  development  and  of  evolution.  Thus, 
both  the  French  Revolution  of  1789  and  the 
Russian  upheaval  are  evolutionary,  historical  acts, 
which  were  fated  to  come. 

Elis6e  Reclus  writes  with  truth  "  that  evolution 
and  revolution  are  scientifically  not  opposed  to 
each  other ;  they  are  the  two  successive  acts  of 
the  same  phenomenon,  evolution  preceding  revo- 
lution, whilst  the  latter  again  carries  in  its  wake 
a  new  evolution,  mother  of  new  revolutions."  ^ 
If  evolution  be  change,  how  can  this  change  take 
place  without  suddenly  altering  the  equilibrium  of 
life  ?  "  The  seed  falls  into  the  soil  and  appears 
lost  and  dead  for  a  time,  but  suddenly  it  sprouts 
forth,  becomes  a  plant,  a  tree,  and  bears  fruit.  And 
the  birth  of  the  child  is  another  revolutionary  act 
— the  result  of  a  slow  evolution." 

The  Russian  autocracy  and  the  French  absolute 
monarchy  carried  in  them  the  seeds  of  a  revolu- 
tion, political  and  social.  ''  Even  Taine,  the 
critic  and  detractor  of  the  French  Revolution, 
admitted  that  "  les  institutions  de  la  France 
n'^itaient  'plus  viables,^^  and  that  consequently  the 
Revolution  had  become  inevitable.^  "  D'avance 
et  a  son  insu,"  continues  Taine,  ""  chaque  genera- 
tion porte  en  elle-meme  son  avenir  et  son  histoire." 

1  Cf.  L' Evolution,  La  Revolution,  Paris,  1898,  p.  15. 

2  Cf.     Ch.    Renouvier,    Philoeophie   Analytique   de   VHistoire, 
1897,  vol.  iv,  p.  633-4. 


PARIS   AND   PETROGRAD  9 

And  both  Sorel  and  Guizot  believe  that  the  French 
Revolution  was  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of 
European  history.  "  Cette  revolution,"  adds  Sorel, 
n'a  point  porte  de  consequence,  meme  la  plus 
singuli^re,  qui  ne  decoule  de  cette  histoire  et  ne 
s'explique  par  les  precedents  de  I'ancien  regime." 

If  the  monarchic  system  of  I  ranee,  as  it  emerged 
from  the  hands  of  Richelieu,  was  fated  to  lead  to 
1789  and  1792,  the  history  of  autocracy  in  Russia, 
the  history  of  the  Romanovs,  was  bound  to  end  in 
the  upheaval  of  1917.  Russian  autocracy  carried 
in  its  womb  the  germs  of  revolution.  In  subsequent 
chapters  I  shall  show  that  the  spirit  of  revolt 
was  present  in  Russia  from  the  days  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  autocracy,  and  how  the  latter  actually 
fostered  this  spirit  of  revolt  by  its  endeavours  to 
suppress  it.  The  greater  the  abuses  of  autocracy, 
the  more  vigorous  became  the  spirit  of  revolt,  and 
the  more  quickly  the  final  crisis  was  brought  about. 

But  if  both  1789  and  1917  were  the  results  of  a 
long  chain  of  evolutionary  processes,  of  historical 
development,  the  comparison  between  the  two 
Revolutions  ends  there.  The  French  and  the 
Russian  Revolutions  differ  in  their  respective 
causes  and  in  their  tendencies  and  their  aims. 
I  have  said  that  political  and  social  revolutions 
are  "  the  result  of  accumulated  ideas  and  senti- 
ments of  discontent  "  ;  that  is,  the  discontent  of 
one  or  several  social  groups  with  the  existing 
order  of  things.  The  causes  of  this  discontent  may 
be  social,  economic,  political  or  religious.  It  may 
be  an  oppression  of  the  body  or  an  oppression  of 
the  mind.  The  discontent  may  vent  itself  in 
claims  for  material  and  economic  improvements, 
or  it  may  be  anxious  to  obtain  liberty  of  conscience 


10  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and  freedom  of  movement,  abolition  of  all  dis- 
tinctions of  class,  race,  sex  or  religion.  The  dis- 
content may  be  animated  chiefly,  as  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  by  envy,  or  it  may  be  fostered 
and  strengthened  by  the  nobler  ideals  of  justice 
and  equality.  It  therefore  follows  that  the  greater 
the  number  of  groups  dissatisfied  with  the  existing 
order  of  things,  the  vaster  the  majority  among 
whom  the  discontent  had  spread,  the  more  exten- 
sive the  claims  and  the  more  radical  must  be  the 
change. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  greater  the  number  of 
groups  who  claim  an  amelioration,  a  change,  an 
abolition  of  the  existing  order  of  things,  who 
struggle  against  the  privileged  and  legislative 
classes  or  groups,  and  who,  consequently,  have 
separate  and  individual  interests  to  defend,  the 
more  difficult  will  be  the  constructive  part  of  the 
Revolution. 

Now  let  us  see  which  social  groups,  discontented 
and  revolutionary,  were  responsible  for  the  up- 
heavals of  1789  and  1792  in  France,  and  of  1917 
in  Russia. 

The  French  Revolution  of  1789,  and,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  all  the  successive  Revolutions  of  1793,  1830 
and  1848  were  pre-eminently  bourgeois  move- 
ments. I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  prole- 
tariat played  no  part  in  that  of  1789.  Quite  the 
contrary ;  but  the  proletariat,  unconscious  as  yet 
of  its  own  vast  strength,  worked  in  the  interests 
of  the  bourgeoisie.  The  Revolution  of  1789  was 
the  work  of  the  upper  bourgeoisie,  which  then  made 
an  effort  to  shake  off  the  shackles  of  thraldom 
into  which  an  absolute  monarchy  and  a  feudal 
system  had  forced  it. 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  11 

It  has  been  rightly  pointed  out^  by  historians 
that  the  principal  idea  of  the  French  Revolution 
was  that  of  equality.  This  is  to  a  certain  extent 
true.  But  it  was  equality  as  the  bourgeois  under- 
stood it :  equality  of  the  capitalist  with  the 
privileged  noble  and  aristocrat.  The  ideal  of  the 
bourgeoisie  of  1789  was  the  equality  of  Birth  and 
Capital  (Europe  and,  above  all,  democratic  America 
have  since  adopted  this  principle),  but  not  the 
equality  of  Capital  and  Labour.  All  the  laws  of 
1789  made  a  distinction  between  the  "  bons  cito- 
yens  "  and  the  "gens  mal  intentionees,"  between 
the  capitalist  bourgeois  and  the  poor  devil  of  a 
prole taire.  The  Constitution  of  1791  clearly  drew 
a  distinction  between  a  wealthy,  dominating, 
governing  class  and  a  governed,  labouring  group. 
There  were  full  citizens  and  citizens  of  a  lower 
grade. 

Even  in  1793,  the  movement  was  far  from  pro- 
letarian. Of  course,  the  cahiers  des  doleances 
raised  a  new  tone  and  spoke  in  the  voice  of  the 
proletariat,  but  the  voice  remained  unheard. 
"  The  voice  of  freedom,"  they  cried,  "  says 
nothing  to  the  heart  of  a  poor  devil  who  is  hungry." 
Marat  even  went  so  far  as  to  maintain  that 
equality  of  rights  must  logically  lead  to  equality 
of  enjoyment  ! 

The  movement  of  1789  in  general  was  thus  far 
from  being  proletarian.*  "  If  one  opens  the  Royal 
Almanach  of  the  year  1788,"  writes  Bardoux.^ 
"  one  is  astonished  to  find  that  the  first  ranks  of 
the  Tiers  Etat  were  already  in  possession  of  all 

i  Faguet,  Uceiivrt  aociale. 

2  Cf.  W.  Sombart,  Sozialiamus,  Jena,  1908,  p.  149. 

'  Cf.  Histoire  de  la  Bourgeoisie  Frant^ist  depuis  la  Eevolution. 


12  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  civil  functions,  excepting  alone  the  Court 
functions  ;  they  were  governors  of  provinces,  and 
filled  the  majority  of  posts  in  the  financial  and 
administrative  institutions,  as  well  as  the  judicial, 
of  the  country.  They  were  daily  acquiring  a  more 
preponderating  influence  in  affairs  of  State.  This 
bourgeoisie,  that  was  already  in  possession  of  the 
public  wealth,  was  anxious  to  acquire  the  right 
to  administer  its  wealth,  the  chance  to  increase 
it  and  the  power  to  hold  it.  All  the  bourgeoisie 
desired  was  to  be  placed  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
the  nobility  and  to  gain  access  to  the  few  superior 
functions  and  posts  to  which  it  still  found  the  way 
barred.  What  the  bourgeoisie  was  anxious  to 
obtain  was  simply  the  official  recognition  of  its 
power,  a  power  de  jure  which  it  already  possessed 
de  facto. 

To  wrest  that  power  from  the  hands  of  absolute 
monarchy  and  autocracy,  to  proclaim  its  own 
power  to  rule  as  absolute  monarchy  and  autocracy 
had  ruled,  was  the  aim  of  the  bourgeoisie  in  1789 
and  1793.  And  it  was  this  aim  that  the  bourgeois 
called  "  liberalism,"  "  Revolution,"  "  equality," 
"  liberty,"  "  a  democratic  government."  Tout 
comme  chez  nous !  The  bourgeois  and  capi- 
talists were  surprised  to  hear  timid  voices,  here 
and  there,  in  favour  of  the  Quatrieme  Etat.  Their 
only  answer  was  to  constitute  themselves  politi- 
cally and  economically,  and  to  deprive  of  their 
rights  as  citizens,  of  their  rights  as  electors,  the 
majority  of  the  nation  :  all  those  who  could  not 
afford  to  pay  a  contribution  equal  to  three  days' 
labour,  or  a  silver  mark  for  the  right  of  being 
eligible.  ^ 

1  Cf.  B.  Lazare,  Idiea  rSvolutionnaires,  p.  6. 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  13 

Thus  Capital  began  its  reign  and  treated  Labour 
as  it  had  itself  been  treated  by  absolute  monarchy 
and  autocracy  1  Plutocracy,  the  mercantile  privi- 
leged class  which  was  to  gain  such  influence  and 
power  during  the  nineteenth  century  in  Western 
Europe,  and  especially  in  America,  had  ascended 
its  throne.  Compared  with  1789,  1917  bears  a 
distinctly  proletarian  character.  Labour,  as  op- 
posed to  Capital,  is  playing  an  important  and 
principal  role  in  it. 


CHAPTER    II 
PARIS  AND  PETROGRAD  (continued) 

Socialism  and  Federalism 

Three  factors  which  constitute  a  mighty  current 
in  the  upheaval  of  1917  were  absolutely  absent  in 
the  French  Revolution.  They  are  briefly  these  ; 
Socialism,  Internationalism  and  its  counterpart, 
Nationalism — or  rather  the  Principle  of  Nationality 
— with  its  variant,  Federalism.  When  I  say  that 
Socialism  was  absent  in  the  French  Revolution 
of  1789,  I  do  not,  however,  mean  to  affirm  that 
socialistic  ideals,  namely,  "  possession  and  pro- 
duction in  common "  and  "  socialisation  of  all 
means  of  production  " — in  a  word,  communism  and 
collectivism,  abolition  of  private  and  individual 
property — were  unknown  before  1789. 

A  brief  glance  at  the  history  of  philosophical 
and  economic  thought  previous  to  1789  will  con- 
vince us  that  such  ideas  and  ideals  had  already  been 
discussed  and  propagated  by  writers  of  antiquity 
and  of  mediaeval  Europe  alike.  Economic  ques- 
tions had  occupied  the  minds  of  thinkers,  of  phil- 
osophers and  sociologists  of  all  ages.  Plato  may 
be  considered  as  the  first  philosopher  and  exponent 
of  communism.  But  Plato's  communism  was 
idealistic  and  antidemocratic,  inasmuch  as  in  his 
system  the  aristocracy,  the  superior  class,  played 

14 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  15 

an  important  role.  Plato's  communism,  therefore, 
was  an  aristocratic  socialism.  The  ancient  Hebrews 
and  the  early  Christians  had  communistic  aspira- 
tions. The  prophet  Isaiah  foretold  an  age  of  per- 
petual peace,  when  the  lamb  and  the  wolf  would 
dwell  together  in  a  peaceful  state  of  communism. 
The  early  Christians,  mostly  revolted  proletarians 
and  emancipated  Jews,  protested  against  the 
existing  regime  of  inequality  and  iniquity,  against 
the  accumulation  of  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few, 
whilst  the  masses  were  plunged  in  endless  misery. 
Christianity,  as  it  was  promulgated  by  the  im- 
mediate disciples  of  the  Saviour,  protested  against 
such  a  state  of  things. 

But  the  disinherited  suffering  classes  were  too 
weak,  too  powerless,  too  lacking  in  organisation  in 
those  far-off  days,  so  the  early  Christians  despaired 
of  ever  being  able  to  establish  a  communistic 
state  upon  the  earth.  They  turned  their  eyes 
to  Heaven,  and,  instead  of  promising  happiness 
to  all  upon  earth,  preached  the  "  Kingdom  of 
Heaven."  The  poor  found  some  consolation  in 
this  doctrine,  whilst  the  rich  were  quite  satisfied. 
They  were  ready  and  willing  to  submit  to  demo- 
cratic principles  in  a  kingdom  to  come,  to  share 
their  bliss  on  a  communistic  basis  with  the  poor 
and  disinherited  some  time  in  heaven,  as  long  as 
they  were  left  in  possession  of  their  wealth  on 
earth.  ^ 

During  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries, 
socialistic  and  communistic  ideas  were  once  more 
promulgated  and  preached  in  a  philosophical  spirit, 
a  la  Plato,  by  such  writers  as  Thomas  More  and 
Campanella.     The   former  wrote   his    Utopia  and 

^  Cf.  EncyclopSdie  Socialiste,  Un  pen  d'histoire,  pp.  44-5. 


16  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  latter  his  City  of  the  Sun.  During  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  philosophers  and  encyclopaedists 
criticised  traditional  conceptions  and  ideas,  passing 
everything  through  the  crucible  of  reason  ;  it  was 
but  natural  that  they  should  also  attack  the  sacred 
right  of  individual  property. 

In  conformity  with  the  laws  of  "Reason  and 
Nature,"  as  exposed  by  Rousseau,  Morelly  and 
Mably,  all  socialistic  and  communistic  ideals  and 
ideas,  at  first  Messianic  and  theological,  become 
metaphysical,  lacking  the  basis  of  reality,  a  well- 
defined  programme,  solid  ground.  They  were 
dreamy,  philanthrophic,  humanitarian,  mystic  and 
philosophical,  but  not  practical.^  They  lacked 
economic  reality  and  that  strength  of  organisation 
which  alone  can  overthrow  one  regime  and,  upon 
its  ruins,  build  up  another.  Such  was  the  true 
condition  of  socialistic  teaching  when  the  French 
Revolution  of  1789  broke  out.  1  he  French  Revo- 
lution had  a  certain  socialistic  background  or 
undercurrent,  but  the  proletariat,  i.e.  the  working 
classes  or  salaried  portion  of  the  nation,  had  as  yet 
too  little  consciousness  of  either  its  rights  or  its 
power,  and  therefore  it  became  the  dupe  of  the 
bourgeoisie,  or  the  mercantile  and  plutocratic 
aristocracy  which  replaced  the  aristocracy  of  birth. 

In  1789,  various  socialist,  communist  and  collec- 
tivist  ideas  and  tendencies  were  struggling  into 
the  foreground  of  thought,  but  the  Revolution 
being,  as  I  have  said,  a  bourgeois  movement, 
brought  about  by  a  class  which  lived  and  had  its 
very  being  in  the  principle  of  private  and  indi- 
vidual property,  they  were  crushed  and  nipped  in 
their  bud.     The  Quatrieme  Etat,  the  proletariat — 

1  Cf.  Encyclopedie  Socialiste,  Un  peu  d^hiatoire,  p.  296. 


,         9      •     •  • 

5'       0      3        5       3 


I  ^  > 


3  '   e       c    )  ^  » 


'  J      »     a 


5      3  9 

■)      t        ■>  > 

3      4   •  » 


Vassiliy,  Prince  of  Moscow, 


16] 


.♦  * 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  17 

not  to  be  confounded   with  the  vagabonds  and 
ragamuffins — was  neither  organised  nor  even  con- 
scious of  its  possible  power.     It  has  taken  ages  for 
the  proletariat  to  become  aware  of  its  power,  for 
Labour  to  dare  definitely  to  declare  war  on  Capital. 
The  rights  of  the  proletariat  only  existed  in  the 
minds    of    the    philosophers.     Yet,     though    the 
philosophers     of     the     eighteenth    century    had 
attacked  the  existing  institutions,   had  criticised 
everything    indiscriminately,    when    the    moment 
arrived  for  them  to  pass  from  metaphysical  specu- 
lation  to   reality,    they   did   nothing ;     when   the 
nation  was  called  upon  to  express  its  wishes  and 
requests  in  the  famous  cahiers  des  doUances,  there 
was  practically  no  cry — except  in  a  few  exceptional 
instances — for  a  thorough  social  change.     "  L'objet 
des  lois  est  d'assurer  la  liberte  et  la  propriete." 
Feudal  rights  were  attacked,  the  possessions  of  the 
clergy  were  confiscated;  but  this  was  not  done  in 
opposition  to  the  principle  of  private  property  but 
as  a  remedy  to  ensure  it.^     There  was  no  open, 
recognised   hostility   against   individual   property, 
no  serious  attempt  to  abolish  it ;  its  abolition  is  the 
key-note    of   modern    socialism.     Royalty,    which 
many  philosophers  identified  with  the  principle  of 
private  property,  was  abolished  in  1792,  yet  none 
of  the  governments  of  the  Revolution  passed  any 
laws  against  individual  property.     On  the  contrary, 
both  the  Constitution  of  1791  and  the  Convention 
sanctioned  it.     It  was  later  consecrated  by  the 
Constitution  of  1793. 

Neither  the  Girondins  nor  the  Jacobins  had  an}?- 
clear,  definite,  collectivist  programme.  The  Jaco- 
bins drew  their  influence  from  the  poor,   whose 

1  Cf.  Lichtenberger  in  (Euvre  Sociale,  p.  68. 

2 


18  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

patrons  they  were,  and  therefore  were  the  enemies 
of  the  rich.  They  were  enthusiastic  about  the 
ideals  of  social  equality,  but  even  they,  philosophers 
and  politicians  as  they  were,  did  not  dream  of  up- 
rooting the  existing  social  order  and  changing  the 
system  of  property,  or  of  establishing  an  agrarian 
democracy. 

Robespierre  and  St.  Just  recognised  the  power 
of  the  State  to  change  the  social  order  with  regard 
to  property,  but,  in  practice,  they,  too,  found  it 
impossible.  Inequality  of  property,  they  ad- 
mitted, was  inevitable,  but  political  and  civil 
equality  would  counterbalance  it.  By  endeavour- 
ing to  find  work  for  the  sans-travail  (out-of-works), 
by  taxing  the  rich,  by  levying  heavy  ransom  upon 
luxuries,  inheritances,  etc.,  they  hoped  to  estab- 
lish a  certain  equilibrium. 

The  Jacobins  were  animated  by  a  spirit  hostile 
to  the  aristocracy,  the  nobles,  the  rich  and  wealthy 
classes,  but  not  to  wealth  and  riches  in  themselves. 
An  equal  distribution  of  property  and  of  the  means 
of  production  did  not  enter  into  their  programme.  ^ 
Property  was  sacred,  communism  was  absurd,  and 
the  suggested  agrarian  law  impracticable.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  Convention  passed  laws  that, 
apparently,  were  in  accordance  with  socialistic 
principles,  but  their  inspiration  came  not  from 
these  principles,  but  from  the  spirit  of  Public  Safety. 
A  government,  even  a  strongly  conservative  one, 
will  in  moments  of  emergency,  of  storm  and  stress, 
often  pass  laws  that  savour  of  socialism,  but  in 
reality  they  are  inspired  neither  by  a  spirit  of 
democracy  nor  of  socialism  :  they  are  rather  mani- 
festations of  the  arbitrary,  autocratic  power  of  the 

^  Cf«  Liohtenberger  in  CEuvre  Social,  p.  86. 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  19 

government  in  question,  or  dictated  by  a  care  for 
Public  Safety.  We  have  seen  many  examples  of 
such  laws  during  the  last  three  years. 

The  only  attempt  at  a  collectivist  revolution  was 
the  conspiracy  of  Babeuf.  This  was  the  direct 
result  of  the  disillusionment  of  the  Quartrieme  Etat 
whom  the  bourgeoisie  had  deprived  of  the  benefits 
and  advantages  of  the  Revolution.  This  is  not  the 
place  to  give  the  history  of  Babouvism,  as  it  has 
been  called  ;  for  our  purpose  w^e  need  only  quote 
a  few  passages  from  the  famous  Manifeste  des 
Egaucc,  which  will  give  a  clear  idea  of  Babeuf's 
collectivist  ideals. 

"  People  of  France,"  he  wrote,  "  for  fifteen  cen- 
turies vou  have  lived  as  slaves  and  have,  conse- 
quently,  been  unhappy.  For  six  years  you  have 
breathlessly  waited  for  independence,  happiness 
and  equality.  To-day,  when  you  loudly  clamour 
for  equality,  you  are  told  :  Be  quiet,  misirables  ! 
Equality  is  only  a  chimera  ;  content  yourselves 
with  conditional  equality  ;  you  are  all  equal  before 
the  law,  '  Canaille,  que  te  faut-il  de  plus  ?  '  Legis- 
lators, rulers,  rich  proprietors,  listen  now  in  your 
turn.  We  are  all  equal,  are  we  not  ?  This  prin- 
ciple you  do  not  contest.  Well,  then  !  Hence- 
forth we  intend  to  live  and  to  die  as  equal  as  when 
we  were  born ;  we  wish  real  equality  or  death — 
that's  what  we  want  !  x\nd  we  are  going  to  have 
it.  The  French  Revolution  was  only  the  prologue 
to  another  revolution,  much  bigger,  much  more 
solemn,  which  will  be  the  last  one. 

"  The  agrarian  law  was  the  spontaneous  wish  of 
several  unprincipled  soldiers,  moved  by  instinct 
rather  than  by  reason.  What  we  want  is  some- 
thing infinitely  more  sublime,  more  equitable  ;   we 


20  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

want  the  community  of  possession  ('  le  bien  des 
biens').  No  more  individual  landownership  ;  the 
soil  belongs  to  no  one.  We  demand,  we  want  the 
enjoyment  in  common  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth  ; 
the  fruits  belong  to  one  and  all.  We  declare  that 
we  can  no  longer  suffer  that  the  vast  majority  of 
men  should  work  and  sweat  in  the  service  of,  and 
for  the  benefit  and  pleasure  of,  the  extremely  small 
minority.  It  has  lasted  too  long  already,  that 
less  than  a  million  men  should  be  in  possession  of 
what  actually  belongs  to  more  than  twenty  millions 
of  their  equals.  This  great  scandal  must  now  cease, 
at  last.  These  revolting  distinctions  between  rich 
and  poor,  great  and  small,  master  and  servant, 
government  and  governed,  must  disappear.  There 
should  be  no  difference  between  men  except  that 
of  age  and  sex.  Since  we  all  have  the  same  needs 
and  the  same  faculties,  there  should  be  but  one 
standard  of  education  and  food  for  all  men  :  we 
share  the  same  sun  and  the  same  air,  so  why  should 
not  the  same  quantity  and  the  same  quality  of 
food  be  ready  for  every  man  ?  "  And  he  finishes  : 
Peuple  de  France  ! 

Ouvre  tes  yeux  et  ton  cceur  a  la  plenitude  de 
la  felicite.  Reconnais,  et  proclame,  avec  nous  la 
Republique  des  Egaux.'! 

According  to  Babeuf,  slavery,  tyranny  and 
oppression  are  the  direct  results  of  inequality,  and 
inequality  is  the  outcome  of  the  principle  of  private 
property.  Property,  therefore,  is  the  scourge  of 
society,  it  is  a  public  crime. 

"  La  nature  a  donne  a  chaque  homme  un  droit 
6gal  a  la  jouissance  de  tous  les  biens." 

*'  La  nature  a  impose  k  chacun  I'obligation  de 
travailler." 


n 
(( 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  21 

''  Les  travaux  et  les  jouissances  doivent  etre 
communs  a  tous." 

"  11  y  a  oppression  quand  I'un  s'epuise  par  le 
travail  et  manque  de  tout,  tandis  que  I'autre  nage 
dans  I'abondance  sans  rien  faire." 

Such  were,  briefly,  the  collectivist  ideals  which 
Babeuf  and  Buanorotti  hoped  to  carry  into 
effect. 

The  conspiracy  of  Babeuf  was  crushed,  and  on 
June  14th,  1791,  a  law  was  passed  that  deprived 
the  working  classes  of  the  right  to  assemble  and 
discuss  ways  and  means  of  defending  their  common 
interests.  ''11  ne  doit  pas  etre  permis  aux 
citoyens  de  certains  professions,'*  says  the  report 
of  Chapelier,  ''  de  s'assembler  pour  pretendus 
interets  communs."  The  groups  having  certain 
interests  in  common  were  thus  not  allowed  to 
organise  themselves,  to  discuss  their  grievances 
and  to  devise  means  for  their  defence.  The  inter- 
ests of  the  Quatrieme  Etat  were  sacrificed  for 
the  general  interest.'  They  protested,  but  they 
were  too  weak  and  powerless  to  exercise  any  real 
pressure.  "  Oh  freres  aines  qui  vendez  Joseph," 
cried  Dufournoy  de  Villiers,  the  author  of  the 
cahier  du  Quatrieme  ordre,  "  qui  abandonnez 
Benjamin,  egoistes,  renegats  de  Ihumanite,  c'est 
de  cette  pret endue  canaille  que  je  me  ferai  gloire 
d'etre  le  defenseur." 

But  the  defenders  were  few.  The  proletariat 
was  not  organised,  had  no  leaders,  and  even  those 
who  were  supposed  to  lead  them  had  no  clearly 
elaborated  programme;  they  rather  followed  the 
proletarians  instead  of  leading  them  and  putting 
their  aspirations  into  concrete  form.     What  were 

1  Cf.  Bouchez  and  Roux,  Histoire  ParUmentaire. 


22  THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  aspirations  of  the  proletariat  in  those  days  ? 
A  desire  to  Kve  better,  to  eat  their  fill.  The  prole- 
tarians of  1789  and  1791  were  hungry  devils, 
simply  ;  they  cried  for  bread  and  liberty ;  but, 
above  all,  it  was  bread  that  they  wanted. 

Yet  the  French  Revolution,  though  not  really 
socialistic  or  collectivist,  paved  the  way  for 
socialism.  It  became  the  starting  point  of  the 
collectivist  ideal ;  it  helped  socialism  to  emerge 
from  the  chaos  of  semi-consciousness,  to  proceed 
from  the  domain  of  Utopia  into  that  of  real 
politics,  from  philosophy  and  literature  into  history.  ^ 
To  the  democracies  of  Europe  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  the  French  Revolution  has  been  what  the 
Russian  Revolution  of  1917  will  prove  to  be  to  the 
democracies  of  the  world  of  the  twentieth  century. 
The  very  fact  that  the  Revolution  of  1789  was  not 
socialistic,  either  in  its  tendencies  or  its  results, 
that  the  principle  of  individual  property  remained 
intact,  and  that  the  power  was  merely  shifted  from 
the  hands  of  the  aristocracy  of  birth  into  those 
of  the  plutocracy,  gave  rise  to  much  deep  thinking 
on  the  part  of  the  sociologists  and  economists  of 
the  nineteenth  century  ;  it  made  them  fully  realise 
that  the  fundamental  social  evil  lay  in  the  unequal 
distribution  of  wealth  and  of  the  means  of  produc- 
tion. The  Proletariat,  and  by  proletariat  I  mean 
the  manual  as  well  as  the  intellectual  proletariat, 
the  Labourer  as  distinguished  from  the  Capitalist, 
gradually  began  to  understand  the  necessity  of 
organisation  if  it  ever  meant  to  make  its  influence 
felt.  Thus,  after  1789,  socialism  began  to  develop 
on  real,  scientific  and  economic  bases,  and  to  make 
such  steady  progress  ahead  that  it  was  able  to 

1  Cf.  Lichtenberger,  I.e.,  p.  102. 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  23 

play  a  very  prominent  part  in  the  Russian  Revo- 
lution of  1917. 

It  was  during  the  nineteenth  century  that  St. 
Simon,  one  of  the  pioneers,  one  might  say,  of 
modern  socialism,  elaborated  his  system,  which  is 
at  once  practical,  philanthropic,  humanitarian  and 
mystico-religious.  St.  Simon,  although  not  an 
opponent  of  the  capitalist,  since  he  failed  to  per- 
ceive the  antagonism  which  must  necessarily  exist 
between  Capital  and  Labour,  was  clearly  upon  the 
side  of  the  labouring  classes  and  advocated  their 
interests.  It  was  also  during  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury that  Robert  Owen  became  the  initiator  of 
the  modern  legislation  in  favour  of  the  working 
classes,  and  tried  his  communistic  principles  in 
America  ;  that  Charles  Fourier  criticised  civilisa- 
tion and  capitalistic  barbarity,  and  promulgated 
the  theory  of  agricultural  associations ;  that 
Proudhon  condemned  property  and  stigmatised  it 
as  ''theft."  "La  propriete  c'est  le  vol."  The 
nineteenth  century  was  the  century  of  various  new 
attempts  at  mystic  socialism  which  found  their 
exponents  in  Cabet,  the  author  of  the  Utopia 
Voyage  a  Vile  d'Icarie  ;  in  Bouchez  and  Pierre 
Leroux.  It  also  gave  birth  to  the  theories  and 
doctrines  of  Marx,  Engels  and  Lassalle,  of  Malon, 
Lavrov  and  Bakunin. 

It  was  during  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century  that  the  "  Internationale "  came  into 
existence  and  created  a  link  between  the  labouring 
classes  of  all  countries,  thus  organising  the  prole- 
tariat of  Europe,  or  international  Labour  against 
international  Capital.  It  was  also  during  the 
nineteenth  century  that  various  new  political  revo- 
lutions took  place,  that  democracy  made  repeated 


24  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

efforts  to  pull  down  the  strongholds  of  aristocracy, 
autocracy  and  absolute  monarchy.  It  was  also 
the  century  of  Blanqui,  who  was  revolutionary 
socialism  personified  :  Blanqui,  who  when  asked 
by  the  judge  what  he  was  by  profession,  replied  : 
*'  Je  suis  proletaire.'*  It  was  the  century  that 
witnessed  the  Revolution  of  1848,  of  Chartism  and 
of  the  Paris  Commune.  What  a  vast  stretch  of 
road  socialism  has  travelled  since  1789  !  It  has 
travelled  far  and  learned  much  in  the  course  of  a 
single  century,  and  from  the  stores  of  its  acquired 
knowledge  the  Russian  Revolution  of  1917  was 
able  to  draw  help  and  guidance. 

Socialism  is  one  of  the  principal  factors  of  the 
Russian  upheaval.  The  agrarian  problem  was 
shirked  and  avoided  by  the  men  of  1789,  but  the 
agrarian  question  is  to-day  the  pivot,  the  sine  qua 
non,  of  the  Russian  social  change.  The  proletariat 
was  almost  ignored  in  1789,  but  to-day,  the  Soviet, 
the  Council  of  soldiers  and  workmen,  is  practically 
in  control  of  the  Russian  Government.  A  very 
brief  glance  at  the  events  of  the  last  decade  of  the 
nineteenth  century  and  the  first  decade  of  the 
twentieth,  and  especially  at  the  constitution  of 
parties  in  the  last  Dumas,  will  show  us  what  deep 
roots  socialism  has  taken  in  Russia. 

In  1884,  the  Social  Democratic  party  was  founded 
in  Switzerland  by  four  militant  revolutionaries — 
Plekhanov,  Vera  Sassoulitsh,  Deutsch  and  Axel- 
rod.  Their  novel  methods  of  propaganda  were 
directly  inspired  by  the  teaching  of  Marx  and 
Engels.  They  spread  the  ideas  of  Marx  among 
the  labouring  classes,  thus  preparing  the  proletariat 
for  the  economic  fight.  From  1891  to  1894  a  series 
of  strikes  were  declared  over  Central  Russia,  at 


PARIS   AND   PETROGRAD  25 

Moscow  and  at  Petrograd.  In  1895,  a  vast  strike 
was  organised  at  Petrograd  by  Lenin  and  Martov, 
in  which  35,000  working  men  participated. 

In  1900-1901,  the  socialist  revolutionary  party 
was  reorganised  under  the  intellectual  leadership 
of  Lavrov.  One  of  the  most  influential  members 
of  the  party  was  Victor  Tshernov,  editor  of  the 
Znamya  Trouda  {The  Banner  of  Work).  The 
majority  of  its  members  belonged  to  the  liberal 
professions,  and  have  exercised  a  considerable 
influence  upon  the  ''  Union  of  Officers  "  and  the 
"  Union  of  Soldiers  and  Sailors."  A  great  deal  was 
expected  from  the  socialist  tendencies  inherent  in 
the  peasants,  who  still  clung  to  the  form  of  collectiv- 
ism manifested  in  the  Mir.  It  therefore  advocated 
the  immediate  socialisation  of  the  land.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Social  Democrats  declared  that  this 
ancient  and  primitive  form  of  communism  would 
have  to  disappear  and  make  room  for  the  modern 
capitalistic  forms  of  production,  as  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  complete  social  construction,  which 
could  only  be  the  result  of  a  slow  evolution.  Apart 
from  agrarian  reform,  the  social  revolutionary 
party  included  terrorism  in  its  programme. 

In  consequence  of  the  narrow  dogmatism  and 
sectarianism  shown  at  the  congress  held  in  London 
in  1907,  a  split  occurred  in  the  Social  Democratic 
party.  It  broke  into  two  factions  :  the  Bolsheviki, 
or  majoritaires,  headed  by  Lenin,  and  the  Men- 
shoviki,  or  minor itaires,  whose  leaders  were  Plek- 
hanov,  Martov  and  Dahn.  The  former  w^ould  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  liberal  bourgeoisie,  whom 
they  accused  of  monarchic  tendencies.  They 
accused  Plekhanov  and  his  friends  of  being  too 
benevolent  towards  the  Liberals  and  the  Cadets. 


26  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  Menshoviki,  on  the  contrary,  maintained  that 
a  revolution  would  be  impossible  unless  Russia 
first  realised  the  political  and  social  conditions  pre- 
vailing in  Western  Europe,  and  that  the  liberal 
bourgeoisie  must  be  an  important  factor  in  the 
revolutionary  movement.  It  would  be  dangerous, 
they  said,  to  alienate  the  sympathies  of  this  section 
of  the  nation  and  thus  throw  it  into  the  arms  of 
reaction.  Each  section  had  its  dogma,  which,  with 
the  doctrinaire  temperament  so  common  in  Russia, 
it  pursued,  and  is  still  pursuing,  to  the  extreme. 

By  an  Imperial  Ukase,  Tsar  Nicholas  II  dissolved 
the  First  Duma.  Then  the  Liberal  and  Labour 
members  endeavoured  to  organise,  by  the  famous 
Vyborg  Manifesto,  an  appeal  to  the  nation,  but 
their  effort  proved  futile.  Yet  "  La  Duma  est 
morte,  vive  la  Duma !  "  exclaimed  the  late 
Campbell  Bannerman.  Energetic  and  active  pre- 
parations were  carried  on  for  the  election  of  repre- 
sentatives to  the  Second  Duma.  In  this  second 
Russian  Parliament,  the  Social-Democratic  party 
counted  not  less  than  sixty- six  deputies,  whilst  the 
socialist-revolutionaries,  soon  joined  by  three 
Armenian  deputies,  had  thirty-five  seats.  Sixty- 
six  deputies  belonged  to  Labour  groups.  Thus,  out 
of  the  500  deputies,  170  were  of  acknowledged 
socialistic  tendencies. 

In  consequence  of  the  triumph  of  autocracy  and 
its  new  electoral  laws,  the  Third  Duma  was  dis- 
tinctly reactionary,  but  the  fight  of  the  Social 
Democrats  nevertheless  continued  with  fierceness 
and  intensity.  The  Social  Democratic  party 
gradually  gained  in  strength  and  power  ;  it  counted 
among  its  leaders  Plekhanov,  Axelrod,  Alexinsky, 
Sticklov,    Razanov    and    many    others.     Of    late 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  27 

years  this  party  has  developed  a  wonderful  activity 
and  energy  which  space  prevents  me  from  describ- 
ing in  detail.  The  other  parties,  socialistic  in  their 
tendencies  and  connected  with  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic organisation,  were  not  less  active  and  ener- 
getic. Such  are:  (1)  The  Bund,  an  organisation 
of  Jewish  working  men  which  was  established  in 
1897,  and  comprises  over  50,000  members  (its 
tendencies  are  socialistic  and  Jewish-national  as 
opposed  to  Zionism)  ;  (2)  The  Lettish  Social 
Democratic  party,  which  is  the  socialist  organisa- 
tion of  the  Baltic  provinces;  and  (3)  Ihe  Social 
Democratic  party  of  Poland  and  Lithuania,  which 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Socialist  Polish 
Party  (P.P.S.),  whose  basis  of  action  is  the  re- 
establishment  of  Polish  independence. 

Now,  though  socialism  made  vast  strides  during 
the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  has 
taken  root  all  over  the  world  among  the  labouring 
classes,  at  least,  yet,  logically,  it  has  to  yield  to 
internationalism.  Socialism  is  collectivism ;  it 
is  organised  Labour  against  Capital,  but  Capital  is 
international,  therefore,  if  the  proletariat  was 
decided  to  wrest  the  power  from  the  hands  of  the 
capitalists,  it  had  to  fight  them  with  their  own 
weapons,  i.e.  upon  international  ground.  Inter- 
nationalism is  socialism  carried  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion. I  hope  I  shall  not  be  accused  of  exag- 
geration or  partisanship  for  saying  this.  I  am 
neither  a  collectivist  nor  a  socialist,  even  though  I 
approve  of  many  of  the  principles  of  the  socialistic 
doctrine.  But  logically  speaking,  I  fail  to  under- 
stand how  any  one — I  mean  any  logically  reasoning, 
serious-minded  individual — honest  and  true  to  his 
convictions,  can  at  once  be  a  socialist  and  yet  an 


28  THE  RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

ardent  nationalist,  i.e.  an  opponent  of  inter- 
nationalism. The  capitalists  of  the  socialist's 
own  native  country  are  his  enemies,  just  as  much 
as  the  capitalists  of  another  country.  The  con- 
ception of  the  socialist- nationalist  is,  to  my  mind, 
just  as  illogical  as  that  of  the  Zionist-Marxist,  or 
Zionist  and  loyal  subject  of  country  of  birth. 

Internationalism  has,  therefore,  become  the  very 
foundation  stone  of  modern  socialism.  It  is  vastly 
different  from  the  internationalism  which,  during 
the  nineteenth  century,  has  gradually  developed 
itself  in  the  domains  of  art  and  science.  The  in- 
ternationalism of  the  proletariat,  of  labour,  the 
internationalism  which  is  the  direct  and  logical 
outcome  of  socialism,  must  be  anti- national— taking 
nationalism  in  the  sense  of  Jingoism. 

"  The  attacks  of  proletarian  internationalism,'* 
writes  Sombart,  "  are  principally  directed  against 
such  conceptions  as  Chauvinism  and  imperialism  ; 
against  national  pride,  against  all  policies  of  con- 
quest and  expansion,  colonial  and  otherwise,  as 
well  as  against  militarism  and  war."  ^  Nations 
yearn  for  peace.  They  know  no  antagonism,  no 
hostility  which  would  compel  them  to  draw  the 
sword.  Every  modern  war  is  a  senseless  massacre 
of  the  unwilling  masses,  who  are  led  to  slaughter 
like  cattle.  Militarism  is  the  origin  of  such 
criminal  enterprises. "  Such  have  been  the  declara- 
tions of  all  socialist  internationalist  congresses  : 
Paris,  1889,  Brussels,  1891,  London,  1906.  These 
international  congresses  all  decided  to  oppose 
militarism  and  war  ! 

I  call  the  reader's  attention  to  this  last  sen- 
tence, and  invite  him  to  reflect  and  draw  his  own 

1  Z.c,  p.  216.  a  Ihid.,p.  216, 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  29 

conclusions.  And  while  he  is  thus  engaged,  he 
may  at  the  same  time  consider  the  following  fact  : 
After  three  years  of  a  terrible  war,  the  spiritual 
head  of  Catholic  Christianity,  His  Holiness  the 
Pope,  has,  at  last,  decided  to  preach  the  peace  of 
the  Gospel.  When  one  portion  of  humanity  has 
for  three  years  learned  to  hate  another  portion. 
Pope  Benedict  XV  comes  forward  and  reminds  us 
of  the  religion  of  Love,  as  taught  by  Him  who 
preached  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  As  if  love 
and  hatred  are  sentiments  which  man  can  harbour 
in  his  breast  at  the  call  of  authority.  Once  we 
love,  it  is  not  easy  for  us  to  learn  to  hate ;  but  when 
we  have  learned,  and  been  taught,  and  rightly  too, 
to  hate,  we  cannot  in  a  moment  turn  round  and 
begin  to  love,  as  if  nothing  had  happened.  It  is 
sheer  hypocrisy  to  pretend  it  be  possible. 

Though  internationalism  is  opposed  to  Jingoism 
and  imperialism,  modern  social  democrats  do  not 
at  all  agree  with  Marx  when  he  says  that  "  the 
working  men  have  no  fatherland,"  "  that  the  pro- 
letarians have  no  home,  and  that  therefore  you 
could  not  take  away  from  them  what  they  did  not 
possess."  Though  opposed  to  imperialism,  to 
annexations,  to  "  political  patriotism,"  as  Sombart 
puts  it,^  the  majority  of  socialists  to-day  are  parti- 
sans of  national  collective  existence — in  other 
words,  of  "  cultural  nationalism,"  or  "  cultured 
patriotism." 

It  would  lead  me  too  far  to  point  out  the  con- 
tradiction existing  between  internationalism  on  the 
one  hand,  with  the  "  solidarity  of  the  proletarians 
of  all  countries  "  as  a  fundamental  principle,  and 
the  nationalism,  or  "  solidarity  of  all  classes  of  one 

1  Cf.  Ibid.,  p.  231. 


30  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

nation  "  in  their  common  interests,  as  opposed  to 
a  foreign  nation,  on  the  other.  But  what  I  wish 
to  emphasise  here  is  that  during  the  nineteenth 
century  the  idea  of  internationaUsm,  as  well  as 
its  counterpart,  an  intense  nationalism,  has  widely 
developed.  It  has  been  since  the  Revolution  of 
1789,  and  especially  since  the  Napoleonic  Wars, 
that  the  "  principle  of  nationality  "  has  acquired 
such  a  preponderating  place  in  the  history  of 
nations,  in  sociology  and  in  politics.  By  the 
*'  principle  of  nationality "  we  understand  the 
''  right  of  a  nation  (or  an  ethnic  group)  to  consti- 
tute itself  into  a  separate  State." 

Now,  the  French  Revolution  of  1789,  whilst  it 
clearly  favoured  the  principle  of  nationality,  was 
not  seriously  faced  by  it  in  France  herself.  The 
French  Revolution  was  directed  against  the  abso- 
lutism of  princes,  and,  in  principle,  was  not  con- 
cerned with  the  idea  and  sentiments  of  nation- 
alities. As  far  as  the  question  arose  in  France, 
the  Revolution  was  hostile  to  it.  It  suppressed 
the  provincial  traditions  and  endeavoured  to 
make  the  unity  of  the  State  complete.  Yet  it 
was  the  French  Revolution,  by  proclaiming  the 
liberty  of  the  oppressed,  and  later  the  Napo- 
leonic Wars,  that  helped  to  awaken  the  sentiment 
and  the  principle  of  nationality.  The  principle 
of  nationality  was  formulated  for  the  first  time  by 
Mme.  de  Stael  in  her  book  on  Germany.- 

Napoleon  had  firmly  established  two  ideas :  the 
dynastic  idea  and  that  of  conquest,  both  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  the  principle  of  nationality. 
The  Holy  Alliance  also  upheld  the  dynastic  and 

1  Cf.  Kojuharoff,  Du  Prjnctpe  des  Nationalitea,  Geneve,  1884, 
p.  38. 


PARIS   AND   PETROGRAD  31 

conquest  ideas.  This  naturally  led  to  a  reaction, 
to  a  revolt  of  national  sentiment,  to  the  awakening, 
development  and  strengthening  of  the  spirit  and 
principle  of  nationality.  After  1848  the  national 
movement  became  more  intense  in  Europe.  It 
manifested  itself  in  two  ways  :  on  the  one  hand, 
it  aimed  at  reuniting  all  the  scattered  portions  of 
one  nation,  or  ethnic  group,  whilst,  on  the  other, 
it  worked  for  a  separation,  a  dissolution  of  artificial 
unions :  the  direct  results  of  conquests  and 
dynastic  principles.^  Since  1859  the  principle  of 
nationality  has  made  itself  felt  all  over  Europe, 
in  Italy,  Greece,  Poland,  Turkey  and  Austria. 

The  Italian  national  movement,  since  1848,  has 
contributed  greatly  to  the  development  of  the 
principle  of  nationality  by  introducing  it  into 
the  domain  of  practical  politics,  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  theory.  It  was  officially  sanctioned 
in  the  war  against  Austria  in  1859.  Napoleon  II 
became  the  defender  of  the  principle,  to  the  great 
amazement  of  the  public*  The  principle  of 
nationality  was  the  pretext  Europe  used  to  inter- 
vene, and  the  reason  of  her  policy,  in  the  Balkans 
and  in  the  Orient.  And,  strange  to  say,  Russian 
autocracy,  that  personification  of  the  dynastic 
principle,  of  the  idea  of  divine  right,  both  so  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  the  conception  that  nations 
should  dispose  of  themselves  as  a  collectivity,  has 
proved  the  champion  of  nationality  in  Turkey  ! 
This  is  perhaps  the  only  point  which  the  Revolu- 
tion has  in  common  with  autocracy.  For  the 
principle  of  nationality  is  one  of  the  most  impor- 

^  Cf.   Raoul  de  la  Grasserie,  Du    Principe  Sociologique    des 
NationaliUs,  Paris,  1905,  p.  10. 

a  Cf.  Rcvut  dea  Deux  Mondes,  1866,  p.  700. 


32  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tant  features  of  the  programme  of  the  Russian 
upheaval  and  the  national  Reconstruction. 

It  has  been  said  that  both  in  France — and  in 
Russia    of    1905,    the    trouble    sprang    from    two 
chief  causes,  namely,  financial  difficulties  and  the 
wretched  state  of  the  peasantry  :    causes  which 
were  utilised  by  the  intellectuals  of  the  respective 
countries  to  set  in  motion  the  wheel  of  reform.    That 
several  factors,  however,  were  present  in  France 
which  were  absent  in  the  Russia  of  1905,  and  these 
coming  into  play  in  1789,  caused  the  French  Revo- 
lution to  assume  its  fierce  and  terrible  form.^     One 
of  these  factors  was  the  war  of  invasion.     Now  it 
must    be    remembered    that    the    recent   Russian 
Revolution  has  broken  out  in  the  midst  of  a  war 
of  invasion.     But  whilst  the  wars  of  the  eighteenth 
and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  centuries  were 
fought  for  dynastic  principles,  for  expansion  and 
greed,   and  whilst   even  the   French  Revolution, 
when  it  became  victorious,  ignored  the  rights  of 
nationalities,  the  present  war  is  said  to  be  a  defence 
of  the  principle  of  nationalities,  a  war  in  favour  of 
the  independence  of  small  states,  of  the  principles 
of  autonomies  and  federalisms. 

Hand  in  hand  with  the  principle  of  nationality 
goes  the  idea  of  "  federalism."  By  federalism  we 
understand  the  right  of  various  provinces  of  the 
same  state  to  enjoy  a  local  autonomy.  Revolution- 
ary France  of  1789  had  emerged  as  a  political 
entity  from  the  hands  of  Richelieu  and  Louis  XIV, 
although  administratively  she  lacked  unity.  France 
was  divided  into  several  provinces  which  enjoyed 
a  certain  independence,  separate  tariffs,  legislation 
and  budgets.     The  Constituent  Assembly  wiped 

1  Cf,  Fortmghtly  Review,  1906,  vol.  ii,  p.  400. 


J      ,  J      »      3  > 

»      '    ,    *       '        '       ' 


»       '       J 
>       '       , 


J  >     > 


'      '    ,       ,  J     '       >      '     3     '      '         " 


Tsar  Michael  Romanov 


32] 


c  « 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  33 

out  the  existence  of  the  provmces,  and  by  dividing 
the  country  into  departments,  districts  and  com- 
munes, destroyed  every  vestige  of  federal  or  auto- 
nomous government  in  France.  The  men  of  the 
Revolution  felt  the  possible  danger  of  a  federal 
movement,  of  an  attempt  by  some  of  the  depart- 
ments to  tear  themselves  away  from  the  centre 
and  to  constitute  themselves  into  so  many  Repub- 
lics, and  by  celebrating  the  feast  of  federation — 
July  14th,  1790— they  hoped  to  avoid  it.  "  La 
Republique  une  et  indivisible  "  was  decreed. 

And  yet  the  danger  had  not  been  so  very  great 
after  all,  for  federalism  in  France  had  little  chance, 
both  on  historical  and  ethnical  grounds.  It  is 
true  that  the  Girondins,  who  succeeded  in  raising 
the  revolt  of  sixty  departments  against  Paris,  were 
accused  of  federahsm.  Yet  it  is  extremely  doubt- 
ful whether  the  Girondins  really  intended  to  create  a 
federal  state  in  France  ;  in  any  case,  they  loudly 
protested  against  the  accusation  of  federalism. 
They,  too,  were  ardent  supporters  of  "La  Re- 
publique une  et  indivisible."  It  was  simply  a 
fight  between  two  parties,  each  anxious  to  lead  the 
Revolution.^  The  Girondins  were  vanquished  by 
the  men  of  the  Montague,  and  France,  one  and 
undivided,  even  more  than  she  had  been  in  the 
days  of  Richelieu,  was  handed  over  as  such  to  the 
Empire.  During  the  Commune,  an  attempt  was 
made  at  federalism,  but  its  failure  showed  how 
little  chance  it  has  in  France. 

Now  if  one  again  compares  1789  with  1917,  one 
finds  w^hat  a  profound  difference  there  exists  be- 
tween the  French  and  the  Russian  Revolutions. 

1  Cf.  Wallon,  La  Revolution  et  le  Federalisme  en  1793,  Paris, 
1886. 


34  THE  RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

A  Russian  Republic,  "  une  et  indivisible,"  is  almost 
out  of  the  question.  Not  only  has  the  principle 
of  nationality,  and  with  it  federalism — which  is 
more  closely  connected  with  it  than  one  would  at 
first  imagine  ^ — made  rapid  strides,  and  is  part  of 
the  programme  of  the  Allied  statesmen,  but  there 
is  such  vast  scope,  such  an  immense  field,  for  auto- 
nomous and  federalistic  agitations  in  Russia, 
Poland  has  been  promised  autonomy,  Finland  and 
the  Ukraine  have  torn  themselves  away  from 
Russia.  There  is  little  doubt  that  in  such  a  vast 
country,  whose  inhabitants  belong  to  128  nation- 
alities, every  day  will  bring  forward  new  claims 
based  upon  the  principle  of  nationalism  or  federal- 
ism. Therein  lies  the  greatest  danger  for  New- 
Russia,  but  just  emerging  from  the  iron  grip  of 
autocracy. 

It  must  also  be  remembered  that  there  is'  an 
enormous  dii'i'erence  between  federated  states  like 
Switzerland  and  America,  who  went  from  separa- 
tion to  union,  uniting  into  one  federate  state,  and 
Russia,  who  would  have  to  reverse  the  process. 
The  requests  for  autonomy  and  federalism,  which 
have  practically  been  acknowledged  by  the  Pro- 
visional Government  of  Russia  and  by  the  all- 
powerful  parties,  is  thus  another  factor  fraught 
with  great  danger,  which  the  France  of  1789  knew 
little  of,  or  which,  if  it  really  existed,  the  Conven- 
tion overcame  with  but  slight  difficulty.  In  an 
age  of  nationalism  run  mad,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
"  internationalism "  on  the  other,  loudly  pro- 
claiming that  ''  le  patriotisme  est  une  mauvaise, 
etroite  et  funeste  habitude,"  that  frontiers  ought 

1  Cf.    also    M.    Block,   Dictionnaire   general   de   la   Politique, 
Paris,  1884,  vol.  ii,  p.  376. 


PARIS   AND    PETROGRAD  35 

to  be  abolished,  etc.,  the  clash  and  antagonism 
between  the  various  ideals  and  ideas,  sentiments 
and  interests,  becomes  tremendous. 

To  sum  up  :  1789  was  the  revolt  of  one  social 
group  against  two  others,  viz.  the  bourgeoisie 
against  the  aristocracy  and  the  clergy.  The  prole- 
tariat, but  little  developed  and  less  organised,  was 
ignored.  The  Russian  upheaval  is  the  work  of 
the  organised  proletariat  to  a  great  extent.  The 
French  Revolution  had  no  principles  of  nationality 
to  deal  with,  and  was  hostile  towards  any  attempt 
of  federalism,  whilst  New  Russia  is  faced  by 
numerous  questions  emanating  from  the  principle 
of  nationality,  and  is  clearly  favouring,  or  is  com- 
pelled to  seem  to  favour,  the  federalistic  programme. 
In  1789,  collectivist  ideals  were  only  beginning  to 
emerge  from  a  state  of  semi-conscious  idealism, 
whilst  in  1917,  they  have  entered  the  domain  of 
reality.  The  Russian  Revolution  is  the  work  of 
numerous  social  groups  who  have  all  separated, 
who  often  have  antagonistic  interests,  to  defend. 
Capital  in  1789  had  not  as  yet  captured  the  power 
it  wields  to-day,  and  consequently  Labour  was  not 
so  hostile  to  it.  During  the  nineteenth  century 
Capital  has  acquired  tremendous  power,  and 
Labour  is  bound,  therefore,  to  see  in  it  its  arch- 
enemy. 

I  must  mention  one  other  factor  which  was 
also  absent  in  1789.  The  French  Revolution  was 
the  revolt  of  a  social  group  only,  the  questions  of 
ethnology  and  religious  beliefs  entered  but  little 
into  it,  whilst  the  Russian  upheaval  is  the  revolt 
of  social  as  well  as  ethnic  and  religious  groups. 
The  Jews,  for  instance,  whom  the  French  Revo- 
lution emancipated,  contributed  to  the  overthrow 


86  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

of  the  old  regime  individually  but  not  collectively, 
whilst  in  Russia  they  have  been  collectively  respon- 
sible for  the  overthrow,  and  have  largely  contri- 
buted to  the  triumph  of  Democracy  over  Auto- 
cracy, as  will  be  shown  in  one  of  the  later  chapters. 
In  France  there  were  oppressed  social  groups  ;  in 
Russia  there  were  social,  ethnic  and  religious 
groups  that  sighed  and  groaned  under  the  yoke  of 
oppression.  In  a  word,  in  the  France  of  1789, 
the  demands  were  not  so  numerous,  the  interests 
not  so  varied,  and  the  antagonism  between 
them  not  so  intense  as  is  the  case  in  the  Russia 
of  1917. 

The  above  comparison  and  survey  will  perhaps 
shed  some  light  upon  the  difficulties  which  have 
arisen,  and  which  were  bound  to  arise,  in  New 
Russia.  To  understand  these  difficulties  it  is 
necessary  to  examine  the  deeper  causes  under- 
lying the  apparent  state  of  chaos.  To  say  that 
the  majority  of  the  Russian  revolutionaries  are 
pacifists— now  a  term  of  opprobrium  equal  to  that 
of  hooligan  in  those  far-off  days  when  Europe  was 
at  peace — would  be  an  unjustifiable  statement, 
especially  with  regard  to  men  who  have  never 
shrunk  from  a  fight  with  their  enemies,  and  who 
have  fearlessly  faced  prison,  exile,  the  mines,  and 
even  death,  for  the  sake  of  the  cause  ;  who,  in 
short,  have  been  good  fighters  all  their  lives. 
"  Traitors,"  too,  is  an  ugly  word  to  use,  besides 
providing  no  adequate  or  psychological  explana- 
tion of  present  events.  There  may,  or  there  may 
not  be,  traitors  among  the  Russian  revolutionaries  ; 
it  is  for  history  to  judge. 

The  causes  of  the  trouble  are  much  more  compli- 
cated.    They  are  briefly  these:     The  authors  of 


PARIS  AND  PETROGRAD  87 

the  Revolution,  from  whatever  class,  group,  social 
or  ethnic,  they  were  drawn,  and  whatever  creed  they 
held,  were  all  of  one  mind  as  far  as  the  destructive 
work  was  concerned,  even  if  they  difiered  as  to 
the  means  to  be  employed.  But  now  that  the  de- 
structive work  is  accomplished  and  Tsardom  lies 
prostrate,  the  diii'erent  elements  composing  the 
revolutionary  forces  part  company.  The  architects 
cannot  agree  as  to  the  plan  of  the  new  structure 
that  is  to  be  erected  upon  the  ruins  of  the  old. 
We  are  witnessing  a  clash,  conflict  and  confusion 
of  sentiments,  ideals  and  ideas.  Men,  if  not 
actually  speaking  a  Babel  of  tongues,  are  certainly 
thinking  a  Babel  of  thoughts.  They  are  also,  not 
infrequently,  taking  the  ''  ought  to  "  of  ethics  for 
the  "it  is"  of  daily  life  ;  they  are  taking  dreams 
for  realities.  The  Russians  are  by  nature  theorists, 
given  to  abstract  reasoning,  and  they  cling  to  their 
theories  with  the  fanaticism  of  the  doctrinaire. 
The  different  currents  of  opinion,  constitutional 
liberalism,  or  a  liberal  bourgeoisie,  Socialism, 
Anarchism,  Nationalism,  Imperialism,  Humani- 
tarianism,  and  Internationalism,  as  well  as  many 
other  "  isms  "  are  crossing  each  other. 

Some  Russians  are  satisfied  with  "  political 
emancipation "  ;  others  are  dreaming  of  an 
"  emancipation  from  politics."  Some  Russians 
would  be  satisfied  with  a  substitution  of  new  gods 
for  old,  would  be  content  with  thorough  repairs 
in  the  old  structure,  whilst  others  desire  a  clean 
sweep,  the  complete  overthrow  of  all  the  idols 
which  humanity  has  hitherto  worshipped,  and  a 
tabula  rasa  for  an  entirely  new  building.  S ome  have 
raised  nationality  into  a  creed  ;  others  are  wor- 
shipping the  individual.     The  former,  like  Lavrov, 


38  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

are  for  a  "  confraternity  of  men,"  without  distinc- 
tion of  race,  nationality  or  language.  In  the  view 
of  Bakunin  and  his  school  the  individual  is  every- 
thing ;  society  is,  or  should  be,  an  agglomeration 
of  pure  spirits,  a  commerce  of  ideas,  whose  goal  is 
liberty.  Man  should  not  be  subordinate  to,  but 
co-ordinate  with  his  neighbour,  and  the  aim  of 
government  should  be  to  make  itself  superfluous. 

Some  of  the  revolutionaries  would  be  satisfied 
with  a  constitutional  monarchy  like  that  of  Great 
Britain  ;  others  desire  a  federal  republic,  like  that 
of  Switzerland  or  the  United  States.  Others  again 
have  more  ideal  dreams  :  they  dream  of  establish- 
ing a  Republic  of  the  Just,  and  take  for  their 
models  the  Republic  of  Plato,  the  City  of  St. 
Augustine,  the  Utopia  of  More,  Harrington's 
Oceana,  Campanella's  City  of  the  Sun,  Fenelon's 
Salente,  and  the  types  of  society  imagined  by  Jean 
Jacques  Rousseau,  or  by  the  ancient  prophets  who 
foretold  the  Kingdom  of  God.  These  dreamers 
forget  that  even  Rousseau  himself  said  that  such  a 
city  presupposes  a  nation  of  gods,  or,  to  use  a 
more  modern  expression,  a  race  of  supermen.  It 
is  a  city  in  which  no  man  is  born,  and  wherein  no 
man  has  ever  physically  lived  :  it  exists  only  in 
the  realm  of  imagination.  The  men  who  dream 
of  such  ideals  would  have  to  legislate  for  pure 
spirits  and  to  build  a  solid  structure  upon  a  foun- 
dation of  clouds. 

The  Russian  Revolution  has  broken  out  in  the 
midst,  perhaps  as  a  result,  of  a  great  war.  We 
have  grown  familiar,  during  the  last  three  years, 
with  the  now  famous  phrase  :  "  The  present  war 
is  a  war  of  ideas."  It  is  quite  natural,  however, 
that  men,  according  to  their  particular  trend  of 


PARIS  AND   PETROGRAD  39 

thought  and  temperament,  should  put  different 
constructions  upon  this  phrase.  To  some,  a  war 
of  ideas  means  a  war  with  heavy  guns  and  mit- 
railleuses, a  war  in  which  men  kill  each  other  to 
make  their  respective  ideas  triumphant.  Others 
construe  the  phrase  to  mean  a  war  in  which  ideas 
do  all  the  fighting.  But  this  is  not  the  only  reason 
which  prompts  some  of  the  Russian  revolutionaries 
to  adopt  the  attitude  of  pacifism.  Many  of  them 
draw,  as  President  Wilson  has  done,  a  clear  dis- 
tinction between  the  German  governing  classes  and 
the  German  people.  They  believe  that  the  German 
people  will  deal  with  the  Hohenzollerns  as  the 
Russians  have  dealt  with  the  Romanovs.  This  is 
the  view  of  the  Social  Democrats  in  Russia,  who  are 
mostly  Marxists,  and  still  cling  to  their  faith  in 
the  German  working  classes. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Social  Revolutionaries, 
who  now  style  themselves,  "  National  Socialists," 
together  with  the  anarchists  like  Kropotkin,  have 
no  illusions  with  regard  to  Marx  and  the  German 
socialists.  They  are  convinced,  as  Bakunin  was, 
that  "  the  assumption  of  a  real  difference  between 
the  Prussian  Government  and  the  German  people 
is  illusory  and  sentimental,"  that  the  Germans  are 
the  most  "  reactionary  and  authoritative  people  " 
in  the  world,  "  lacking  the  instinct  of  liberty." 
The  Social  Democrats  say,  "  Let  us  reason  with 
the  mind  of  Germany,  and  thus  conquer  "  ;  the 
National  Socialists,  more  clear-sightedly  reply, 
"  Let  us  conquer,  and  then  we  will  reason."  Beyond 
this  it  may  be  said  that  the  Marxists  in  Russia  are 
bent  upon  shifting  the  war  from  a  war  of  nations 
to  a  war  of  classes.  They  care  little  for  the  map 
of  Europe,  so  long  as  their  ideas  of  a  social  recon- 


40  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

struction  emerge  triumphant  from  the  welter  of 
sacrifices. 

Another  psychological  current  underlying  the 
present  ferment  in  Russia,  another  idea  "  struggling 
in  the  background  of  the  Russian  convulsion," 
is  the  question  of  democracy  and  "  democratic 
control."  Here  again  men  are  apt  to  put  different 
constructions  upon  the  words  "  democratic  control." 
When  is  it  to  begin  ?  When  will  democracy  really 
assert  itself  ?  If  democratic  control,  they  say, 
is  to  be  the  watchword  of  Europe  in  a  not  dim  and 
distant  future,  if  the  triumph  of  democracy  is  to 
be  the  great  conquest,  the  vast  annexation  wrested 
from  Prussian  militarism,  then  democracy  should 
have  a  voice  in  the  war,  even  before  it  has  been 
brought  to  a  successful  issue. 

Hitherto,  say  the  democrats  in  Russia,  war  has 
been  declared  and  carried  on  without  our  having 
been  consulted  ;  we  have  heard  vague  formulas 
and  aspirations,  but  we  have  had  no  control  of  the 
war  ;  we  are  ignorant  of  secret  diplomatic  arrange- 
ments and  treaties  ;  we  know  not  to  what  extent 
the  government  has  pledged  the  nation,  its  wealth 
and  its  future  ;  we  are  told  that  this  war  is  to  lay 
the  foundations  for  a  new  edifice,  a  new  Europe  ; 
we  labourers  and  wage-earners  may  have  views  as 
to  the  nature  of  that  edifice  different  from  those  of 
the  governing  and  capitalist  classes  ;  we  are  told 
this  war  is  to  be  the  end  of  the  era  of  conquest  ; 
we  do  not  want  it  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  new 
era  of  exploitation  ;  we  are  all  anxious  to  crush 
Prussian  militarism,  but  you  governing  and 
capitalist  classes  may  be  anxious  to  do  it  for  the 
benefit  of  the  bourgeoisie  ;  and,  incidentally,  the 
German  bourgeoisie  would  profit,  whilst  our  own 


PARIS   AND   PETROGRAD  41 

proletariat  would  suffer ;  we  Russian  democrats 
have  decided  to  continue  the  war  and  to  carry  it 
to  a  successful  issue  under  really  democratic 
control,  which  must  from  to-day  enter  into  power  ; 
thus  alone  can  we  make  our  arrangements  both 
for  crushing  Prussian  militarism  and  for  safe- 
guarding the  future  of  the  working  classes  ;  we 
are  quite  content  for  our  capitalists  to  suffer  as 
well  as  German  capitalists,  and  for  the  German 
working  classes  to  gain  as  well  as  our  own  working 
classes. 

Such  are  the  cross-currents  of  the  Russian 
Revolution,  such  are  the  thoughts  and  theories  of 
the  men  in  the  forefront  of  the  movement.  They 
spring  from  the  difjerent  doctrines  of  the  phil- 
osophers and  sociologists  who  sowed  the  seeds  of 
the  Revolution,  and  also  from  the  various,  and  often 
antagonistic,  interests  of  the  social,  ethnic  and 
religious  groups,  whose  discontent  was  the  prime 
factor  of  the  upheaval. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE    SPIRIT    OF    REVOLT 

The  news  of  the  Russian  Revolution  has  come  to 
Europe  like  a  thunderbolt  from  the  blue.  Out  of 
chaos  a  new  world  seems  to  have  emerged— a  world 
of  freedom  and  liberty,  a  world  created  by  the 
fiat  of  the  workers  grown  grey  in  the  struggle. 
But  ex  nihilo  nihil.  The  human  creators  who  have 
called  into  being  this  new  world — the  far-reaching 
effects  of  which  Europe  has  not  yet  realised —  have 
had  good  creative  matter  accumulated  in  the 
course  of  decades,  and  even  centuries,  to  work 
upon.  The  spirit  of  revolt  did  not  suddenly  swoop 
down  upon  the  captives  of  Tsardom ;  it  has  long 
been  brooding  and  hovering  over  the  vast  plains 
of  Russia ;  but  now,  at  last,  it  has  manifested  itself 
in  this  new  upheaval,  in  this  overthrow  of  autocracy 
and  the  downfall  of  the  house  of  Romanov,  in  this 
crumbling  down  of  the  old  bureaucratic  regime, 
undermined  to  its  very  foundations. 

It  has  often  been  stated  that  the  historical  period 
of  the  Russian  Revolution  began  in  the  year  1855, 
the  Crimean  War,  or,  as  some  say,  with  the  rising 
of  the  Decembrists  in  1825.  In  my  opinion,  how- 
ever, the  beginnings  of  the  Russian  Revolution 
may  be  sought  for  in  a  much  more  remote  period. 
The  seeds  were  first  sown  in  Russian  soil,  and  in 
the  Slavonic  soul,   when  the  Moscow  autocracy 

49 


THE   SPIRIT   OF  REVOLT  43 

arose  upon  the  ruins  of  the  power  estabhshed  by 
the  Mongol  Khans.  The  spirit  of  revolt  has 
existed  in  Russia  since  time  immemorial.  It  has 
always  struggled  to  express  itself,  and  has  done 
so  at  various  times  and  epochs  in  different  ways. 
It  found  a  homestead  here  and  there  among 
different  strata  of  society  ;  it  was  either  political, 
or  social,  or  even  both  at  once,  according  to  need. 

Sometimes  it  fought  against  purely  Russian 
evils :  despotism,  absolutism  and  autocracy ;  whilst, 
at  others,  it  waged  war  against  social  wrongs  such 
as  the  rest  of  Europe  were  also  suffering;  then  it 
became  cosmopolitan  instead  of  local  or  purely 
national.  Sometimes  it  took  the  form  of  a 
struggle  against  political  oppression  and  en- 
deavoured to  endow  Russia  with  various  insti- 
tutions similar  to  those  existing  in  the  West,  in 
France,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Switzerland  and 
America.  At  other  epochs,  it  appeared  like  a 
Utopia  whose  adherents  greatly  resembled  the 
carbonari,  men  thirsting  for  a  mystic  ideal.  It  was 
but  natural  that  in  its  search  for  true  manifesta- 
tion the  spirit  of  revolt  should  work  blindly  and 
even  deviate  from  the  right  path,  and  its  apostles, 
instead  of  preaching  a  gospel  of  justice  and 
idealism,  seem,  like  Erostrates  of  old,  only  anx- 
ious to  destroy  out  of  sheer  love  of  destruction 
and  revenge.  Yet  it  is  always  so  ;  those  upon 
whom  the  spirit  has  descended  will  always  appear 
either  apostles  or  savages  to  the  world. 

In  old  Russia,  the  Russia  of  Rurik,  the  Russia 
of  princes  and  appanages,  the  institutions  were 
distinctly  democratic,  even  republican.  This  was 
especially  so  in  the  North- Western  provinces  and 
in  such  commercial  centres  as  Pskov  and  Novgorod. 


44  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  population  was  divided  into  small,  rural  com- 
munities ;  towns  were  few  and  only  distinguished 
from  the  villages  by  their  wooden  enclosures.  Each 
community  consisted  of  the  descendants  of  one 
family,  thus  possessing  the  land  in  common  and 
all  obeying  the  patriarchal  authority  of  the  head 
of  the  family,  called  the  elder.  It  was  a  patriarchal 
system,  or  one  might  say,  monarchic  en  miniature^ 
which  was  limited  by  the  authority  of  "  the  whole 
world  "  {vessj  mir),  i.e.  of  all  the  inhabitants.  The 
social  organisation  of  the  cities  and  towns  was 
exactly  similar  to  that  of  the  rural  communities, 
and  the  power  of  the  princes  was  counterbalanced 
by  that  of  the  general  assembly  of  all  the  urban 
inhabitants,  known  as  the  vetshe.  There  was  no 
distinction  between  the  urban  and  rural  inhabi- 
tants, or  peasants  ;  neither  was  there  any  privi- 
leged class  in  old  Russia ;  there  was  only  the 
people  and  a  princely  family  descended  from  Rurik. 
The  members  of  this  family  parcelled  out  the 
whole  of  Russia  among  themselves.  The  state 
was  divided  into  appanages,  each  governed  by  a 
prince  under  the  supremacy  of  the  eldest  member 
of  the  family,  who  bore  the  title  of  Grand  Prince. 
His  appanage  was  first  Kiev,  then  later  Vladimir 
and  Moscow.  The  power  and  authority  which 
the  Grand  Prince  could  exert  over  the  other 
princes  was  quite  insignificant.  Nominally,  the 
lesser  princes  recognised  the  supremacy  of  the 
Grand  Prince,  but,  in  reality,  they  were  but  little 
dependent  upon  him,  and  there  was  absolutely  no 
administrative  centralisation.  Again,  the  appan- 
ages were  not  the  individual  property  of  the  prince, 
for  he  often  passed  from  one  appanage  to  another. 
The  prince  was  surrounded  by  his  companions  in 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  REVOLT  45 

arms,  who  constituted  a  kind  of  aristocracy,  which 
was,  however,  recruited  from  the  people.  The 
idea  of  an  aristocratic  class  had  been  brought  to 
Russia  by  the  Varangians,  or  Normans,  but  the 
Slavonic  spirit  modified  that  idea  according  to  its 
own  partriarchal  and  democratic  notions.  The 
title  of  hoyarin  was  not  hereditary,  and  conferred 
no  special  privilege.  The  power  of  the  prince 
was  not  by  any  means  absolute,  though  it  later 
became  so  in  Moscow.  The  prince  was  merely  the 
elder  of  a  great  number  of  towns  and  villages  over 
which  he  ruled  conjointly  with  the  general  assem- 
blies. His  only  advantage  was  that  his  post  was 
not  elective ;  the  dignity  w^as  hereditary.  The 
prince  was  the  chief  magistrate  of  his  appanage. 
In  a  word,  Russia  in  those  early  days  was  a  federated 
state  with  a  homogeneous  population,  practically 
without  class  distinction  and  with  all  property 
held  under  the  communal  system.  This  organisa- 
tion was  certainly  not  inferior  to  that  existing  in 
other  European  states  before  the  fourteenth 
century.  On  the  contrary,  the  Russian  people 
really  enjoyed  more  freedom,  both  individual 
and  collective,  than  did  their  fellows  in  feudal 
Europe. 

Thus,  in  the  majority  of  Russian  principalities, 
the  prince  was  a  strictly  constitutional  ruler,  if 
one  may  apply  this  epithet  to  a  time  when  the 
idea  of  a  constitution  was  far  from  having  been 
clearly  defined  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  In  any 
case  the  prince  never  took  any  important  step 
without  previously  consulting  the  popular  assembly. 
Gradually  the  princes  of  Kiev  extended  their  sway 
over  the  other  principalities,  but  this  was  chiefly 
because  the  Russian  principalities  felt  themselves 


46  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

unable  to  cope  single  handed  with  their  foreign 
foes,  especially  the  Greek  of  Tsargrad,  Byzantium 
or  Constantinople.  The  latter  had  the  advantages 
of  civilisation,  science  and,  above  all,  centralisa- 
tion. The  old  democratically  inclined  Slavs,  who 
had  invited  the  Varangian  princes  to  come  and 
bring  order  into  their  vast  lands,  felt  that  Rurik 
and  his  descendants  had  given  them  but  a  small 
degree  of  cohesion.  Byzantium,  they  said,  was 
strong  because  it  had  but  one  Caesar  and  one  faith, 
and  because  the  entire  nation  was  grouped  round 
one  holy  dynasty. 

Yet  it  was  not  the  real  Russian  nation,  the  old 
Slavs,  the  democratic  communities,  that  cast  such 
longing  eyes  at  the  Byzantine  institutions ;  they 
were  quite  happy,  and  would  have  remained  so, 
with  their  paganism,  their  vetshes  and  communal 
regime.  It  was  rather  the  ardent  wish  of  the 
princes  of  Kiev,  who  were  anxious  to  strengthen 
their  power  and  to  introduce  into  the  land  of  the 
Slavs  the  Csesarism  of  Byzantium.  The  idea  of 
the  divine  law  of  the  ruler  also  existed  among 
their  near  neighbours  the  Poles,  Lithuanians,  Ger- 
mans, Bulgarians  and  Khosars,  all  converted 
either  to  Catholicism,  Islam  or  Judaism,  but  no- 
where was  it  so  strongly  developed  as  at  Con- 
stantinople ;  nowhere  else  was  the  union  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  so  close  and  so 
strong. ' 

One  day,  thought  the  holy  Vladimir,  I,  too, 
shall  be  an  autocrat  like  the  Caesar  of  Byzantium, 
and  know  no  other  law,  no  superior  will,  except 
the  abstract  one  of  the  Trinity.  Henceforth,  I 
shall  be  above  the  Russian  communities,  and  no 

1  Cf.  V.  Berard,  I.e.,  1905,  p.  88. 


THE   SPIRIT  OF  REVOLT  47 

vetshe  or  popular  assembly  shall  dare  to  contradict 
my  will  or  invoke  ancient  privileges  or  customs. 
I  shall  be,  like  the  Caesars  of  Constantinople,  the 
absolute  ruler,  and  should  the  people  dare  revolt, 
I  shall  not  only  draw  my  sword  but  also  hurl 
against  them  the  thunders  of  the  Church  ;  threaten 
them  not  only  with  punishment  in  this  world,  but 
also  with  damnation  in  the  next  for  having  dared 
to  disobey  the  anointed  of  the  Lord.  In  the 
Catholic  religion,  the  temporal  rulers  have  to 
submit  to  the  Pope,  whilst  in  the  Byzantine  Church 
the  inheritor  of  Constantinople  is  the  supreme  head 
of  both  State  and  Church/ 

This  splendid  religion  could  hardly  fail  to  appeal 
to  the  Varangian  prince,  however  uncongenial  it 
might  be  to  the  democratic,  joyous  and  pagan 
masses  of  the  Slavs.  That  this  statement  is  true, 
history  has  abundantly  proved.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  Greek  religion  has  never  really  penetrated  the 
Russian  masses ;  for  centuries  they  remained 
pagans  at  heart  and  merely  practised  the  forms  of 
the  religion  superficially.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  princes  of  Kiev,  and  above  all  the  Tsars  of 
Moscow,  both  before  and  after  Peter  the  Great, 
have  regularly  drawn  their  strength  and  their 
power,  the  power  of  autocracy,  from  their  By- 
zantine religion.  Thus  the  orthodox  faith 
appealed  to  the  Princes  of  Kiev,  since  it  was  the 
only  religion  that,  like  the  ancient  Greek  paganism, 
subordinated  ecclesiastical  authority  to  the  tem- 
poral power. 

In  Islam,  Judaism  and  Catholicism  it  was  just 
the  reverse.  Vladimir,  when  he  embraced  By- 
zantine Christianity,  was  not  so  much  struck  by  the 

1  B6rard,  l.o,,  p.  290. 


48  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

benefits  of  the  religion  as  by  the  service  it  could 
render  the  development  and  increase  of  autocracy. 
Vaguely,  this  Rvissian  Constantine,  this  holy 
monarch,  this  artistic  pagan,  was  already  dreaming 
of  the  autocratic  power  which  his  successors  would 
one  day  wield  and  carry  to  its  utmost  consumma- 
tion. Passive  obedience  and  monastic  discipline 
were  thus  introduced  into  Russia.  Truly  writes 
Herzen  :  "  Byzantium  brought  Russia  to  sad  and 
degrading  times ;  it  blessed  and  sanctioned  all 
coercive  measures  against  the  liberty  of  the 
people.  It  taught  the  Tsars  Byzantine  despotism, 
it  prescribed  and  ordained  to  the  people  a  blind 
obedience  and  a  complete  resignation."  ^  In  the 
abyss  of  Byzantium  the  individualism  of  Russian 
nationality  was  lost,  for  a  time  at  least.  Russian 
energy  and  joie  de  vivre^  independence  and  per- 
sonality were  thus  carried  to  the  grave  to  the 
sound  of  Byzantine  Church  music  and  with  By- 
zantine funeral  rites.' 

Whilst  in  Western  Europe,  the  struggle  between 
Empire  and  Papacy  was  a  long  and  desperate  one, 
in  Russia  the  Byzantine  clergy,  in  accordance  with 
Byzantine  teaching,  were  the  very  prop  and  main- 
stay of  autocracy.  Thus  the  introduction  of  the 
Greek  religion  into  Russia  laid  the  first  founda- 
tions of  autocracy  in  the  principality  of  Kiev,  and 
upon  which  the  Tsars  of  Moscow  built  up  the 
edifice  of  Tsardom,  so  hostile  to  the  principles  of 
Slavonic  democracy  and  liberalism.  The  influence 
of  Byzantium,  great  as  it  had  been  at  Kiev,  became 
even  more  powerful  at  Moscow.  To  a  certain 
extent  it  increased  as  Moscow  grew  stronger  and 

1  Dii  Developpement,  I.e.,  p.  109. 

*  Cf.  Bappoport,  History  of  Russia,  London,  1905,  p.  40. 


3  4 

3  >        ■> 


Tsar  Peter  the  Great. 


48] 


cc 


THE   SPIRIT   OF   REVOLT  49 

extended  its  sway.  When  Ivan  III  married  Sophia 
Palasologus  he  began  to  look  upon  himself  as  the 
heir  of  the  Greek  Caesars  from  whom  the  Turks 
had  wrested  Constantinople.^ 

Another  factor  favourable  to  the  establishment 
and  growth  of  autocracy  in  Russia  was  the  Mongol 
invasion.  Internally,  Russia  remained  as  before, 
for  the  Khans  ruled  from  a  distance  ;  they  exacted 
an  unconditional  submission,  but  very  rarely  did 
they  interfere  in  the  internal  administration  of  the 
countries  under  their  dominion.  The  Khans  only 
knew  the  local  princes.  However,  though  the 
Khans  left  the  internal  organisation  in  Russia  un- 
touched, their  invasion  was  nevertheless  a  terrible 
blow  to  Russian  democratic  and  liberal  institu- 
tions. The  continual  devastations  exhausted  the 
people  and  drove  them  away  from  the  ruined  towns 
and  villages  into  the  woods  and  forests.  Perse- 
cuted, oppressed  and  intimidated,  the  Slavs 
acquired  the  psychology  of  the  continvially  op- 
pressed, the  spirit  of  servility  which  the  Princes  of 
Moscow  later  used  for  their  own  personal  benefit. 
Those  very  Princes  of  Moscow  who  developed 
Russian  autocracy  began  by  themselves  adopting 
a  servile  attitude  towards  the  Tartar  Khans  of  the 
Golden  Horde.  As  their  reward  they  were  ap- 
pointed the  general  tribute- collectors  for  their 
masters,  the  Khans.  They  were  authorised,  aided 
by  the  Tartar  Baskaks,  to  collect  the  tribute  from 
all  the  provinces  subject  to  the  Tartar  sway. 
Thus  the  authority  of  the  Princes  of  Moscow 
naturally   increased.     Moreover,    since   Kiev   was 

1  It  is  upon  this  marriage  that  the  Russian  Tsars  have  based 
their  historic  claims  to  Constantinople.  Historically  they  have 
no  other  claim  and  no  other  right. 


50  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

sacked  by  the  Tartars,  the  Metropohtan  of  the 
orthodox  Church  had  no  fixed  residence  ;  he  now 
estabHshed  himself  in  Moscow,  which  town  at  once 
became  the  ecclesiastical  capital  of  Russia,  an 
event  of  far-reaching  importance  for  the  develop- 
ment of  autocracy. 

A  few  years  later,  the  Princes  of  Moscow  built 
the  famous  Troitza  monastery  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  town ;  the  prior,  Sergius,  was  the  great  ally 
of  the  prince  and  ably  supported  him  in  all  his 
autocratic  designs.  Then  when  Dmitry  Donskoi 
defeated  the  Tartars  and  was  blessed  by  the  holy 
Sergius,  the  alliance  between  the  Greek  Church  and 
autocracy  was  definitely  sealed.  Henceforth  the 
Greek  Orthodox  Church  became  the  firm  supporter 
of  autocracy,  whilst  the  latter  followed  a  policy  of 
persecution  and  intolerance  towards  all  heretics, 
i.e.  those  who  did  not  accept  the  doctrines  of  the 
orthodox  Church.  Having  grown  rich  while 
squeezing  their  subjects  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Tartar  Khans,  the  Princes  of  Moscow  extended 
their  territory  by  either  acquiring  or  conquering 
neighbouring  principalities.  Thus  they  not  only 
increased  their  possessions  and  power,  but  they 
also  crushed  the  ancient,  popular  and  democratic 
institutions  that  distinguished  mediaeval  Russia.^ 

Yet  even  until  the  fifteenth  century  the  struggle 
between  the  autocratic  tendencies  of  Moscow  and 
the  ancient  democratic  spirit  of  Russia  was  still 
going  on.  It  was  a  question  as  to  which  of  the 
two  principles  would  conquer  in  the  end  :  the 
Prince  or  the  community  ;  the  aristocratic  state 
of  Moscow  or  the  Republic  of  Novgorod.     Nov- 

^  Cf.   M.   Kovalevski,   U Evolution  des   liberies   puhliques   en 
Bussie,  Paris,  1905,  p.  6. 


THE  SPIRIT   OF  REVOLT  51 

gorod,  once  freed  from  the  yoke  of  the  Tartars, 
quickly  developed  its  ancient  democratic  institu- 
tions and  became  rich,  powerful  and  flourishing. 
It  was  a  bitter  struggle,  that  struggle  between 
Democracy  and  Absolutism,  and  Moscow,  the 
principle  of  autocracy,  conquered.  Her  Princes 
won  the  title  of  "  Tsars  of  all  the  Russias,"  and 
Tsardom,  the  enemy  of  liberty,  of  democracy,  of 
independence,  made  its  appearance.  Constanti- 
nople fell  under  the  sway  of  the  Turks  ;  the  two- 
headed  eagle,  exiled  from  Tsargrad,  found  a 
resting-place  upon  the  flag  of  Moscow,  and  the 
Greek  clergy  devoted  itself  to  the  task  of  by- 
zantinising  Russia. 

The  people  suddenly  found  themselves  faced  by 
a  Tsar,  by  an  absolute  monarch  who  was  a  stranger 
to  them,  a  usurper,  a  conqueror  who  had  gathered 
his  strength  in  the  shadow  of  the  Khanate.  He 
had  become  so  powerful  that  he  could  ignore  all 
the  old  privileges  and  customs  of  the  people.  If 
prince  or  city  rebelled,  he  punished  with  the 
ferocity  and  cruelty  that  he  had  learned  from  the 
Mongols.  But  Novgorod  still  resisted  him.  "You 
tell  us,"  said  the  ambassadors  of  Novgorod  to 
Ivan  III,  "  that  we  must  obey  the  laws  of  Moscow, 
but  we  do  not  know  the  laws  of  Moscow."  But 
in  the  end  Novgorod  was  subdued.^  And  when, 
but  little  later,  the  Republic  of  Pskov  fell  under 
the  sway  of  Ivan  the  Terrible,  the  popular  assem- 
blies ceased  in  Russia. 

During  the  reign  of  Ivan  Grozny,  the  Cruel,  a 
lingering  vestige  of  the  limited  power  of  the  ruler 
could  still  be  observed.  Ivan,  whilst  fighting 
against  the  demands  and  privileges  of  the  boyarins, 

1  Cf.  Hertzen,  I.e.,  p.  21. 


52  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

some  of  whom  were  the  descendants  of  the  reigning 
princes  subdued  and  disinherited  by  the  Princes  of 
Moscow,  convened  the  Semski  Sobor  or  States 
General.  They  were,  however,  by  no  means  a 
limitation  of  the  autocratic  power  which  was  fast 
developing.  On  the  contrary,  autocracy  found  a 
support  for  its  aspirations  and  am.bitions  in  the 
principles  of  the  jus  Romanum  then  imported  into 
Russia  by  the  Greeks  expelled  from  Constan- 
tinople. The  Tsar  decided  to  emancipate  himself 
entirely  from  the  control  of  the  boyarins  and  the 
Moscow  aristocracy,  and  it  was  therefore  that  he 
convened  the  Sobors,  who  counterbalanced  the  pre- 
tentions of  the  aristocracy. 

The  peasants,  who  had  enjoyed  liberty  and  even 
prosperity  during  the  period  of  the  appanages, 
gradually  lost  their  freedom  under  the  rule  of 
Moscow.  It  was  but  natural  that  the  develop- 
ment and  growth  of  autocracy,  the  entire  power 
vested  in  the  ruler,  should  give  rise  to  much  dis- 
content. This  discontent  has  been  smouldering 
for  centuries.  Various  boyarins,  descendants  of 
Rurik  and  Guedimin,  at  different  times,  made  en- 
deavours to  limit  the  power  of  autocracy,  but  all 
their  efforts  proved  futile.  Among  the  peasants, 
the  masses,  who  were  only  thought  of  as  the  goods 
and  chattels  of  their  masters,  this  discontent  was 
universal.  Jacqueries  and  peasant  risings  became 
frequent.  Among  the  chief  supporters  of  such 
risings  were  the  Cossacks,  who,  paradoxical  as  it 
may  sound,  were  the  first  and  fiercest  opponents 
of  autocracy.  The  Cossacks  were  the  first  Repub- 
licans in  Russia.  A  glance  at  their  history  will 
convince  the  reader  that  this  statement  is  no 
exaggeration.     Thus  the  peasants  and  the    Cos- 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  REVOLT  53 

sacks  were  always  to  be  found  on  the  side  of  those 
who  were  likely  to  introduce  liberal  and  demo- 
cratic principles  into  Russia.  They  supported  the 
first  false  Dimitri  and  rose  against  Tsar  Shuiski, 
when  the  latter  endeavoured  to  strengthen  the 
power  of  the  boyarins  at  the  expense  and  to  the 
detriment  of  the  people. 

Yet  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
it  really  seemed  as  if  Moscow  were  going  to  in- 
augurate an  era  of  liberty  congenial  to  the  ancient 
spirit  of  the  Slavs.  This  was  in  1613,  after  a  period 
of  trouble  and  national  distress,  when  Mikhail 
Romanov  ascended  the  throne.  The  new  Tsar 
made  certain  concessions  and  promised  many 
reforms  on  his  ascension.  These  promises,  how- 
ever, did  not  affect  either  the  peasants  or  the 
landed  nobility  ;  they  were  solely  in  favour  of  the 
so-called  serving  nobility  ;  their  prerogatives  were 
increased  and  the  foundations  of  the  later  bureau- 
cracy laid.  The  Duma  of  the  boyarins  was  sup- 
pressed and  the  lot  of  the  peasants  and  serfs  became 
almost  unbearable.  This  state  of  aflairs  grew 
worse  during  the  reign  of  Alexis  IMikhailovitsh, 
when  the  autocracy  regained  all  its  former  power, 
which  it  was  destined  to  hold  for  another  three 
centuries. 

By  this  time,  discontent  was  not  only  rampant 
among  the  people,  but  was  also  at  home  in  the 
orthodox  Church.  As  we  have  seen,  in  the  begin- 
ning the  orthodox  Church  was  the  staunch  sup- 
porter of  autocratic  power,  but  in  the  course  of 
time  it  grew  weary  of  the  yoke,  and  jealous  too. 
It  was  ready  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunity 
to  shake  off  the  temporal  supremacy  of  the  Tsar. 
When  such  an  opportunity  at  last  came,  in  March 


54  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

1917,  the  world  was  astonished  to  see  how  eagerly 
and  anxiously  the  Russian  Church  greeted  freedom. 
But  it  was  not  a  surprise  to  those  who  knew  the 
great  discontent  that  had  lain  dormant  within  the 
orthodox  Church. 

The  silent  discontent  of  the  Church,  and  its 
struggle  for  emancipation  and  freedom,  may  be 
traced  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  The  Russian  orthodox  Church  tasted 
the  first  sweets  of  power  during  the  reign  of  Mikhail 
Romanov,  when  the  Tsar's  father  Philarete  was 
appointed  Patriarch  and  assisted  his  son  in  the 
government  of  the  country.  The  Church  was 
naturally  anxious  to  exercise  the  same  preponder- 
ating influence  even  after  the  death  of  Philarete, 
but  the  Tsars,  the  successors  of  Mikhail  Romanov, 
resented  it.  From  this  struggle  between  Church 
and  State  the  latter  emerged  victorious,  and  then 
once  more  the  former  became  subservient  and 
dependent,  and  an  apparent  supporter  of  auto- 
cracy. But  within  the  walls  of  the  monasteries 
and  sacred  edifices  the  spirit  of  revolt  had  found 
a  home,  and  there  it  continued  to  brood  and  bide 
its  time.  Patriarch  Nikon,  indeed,  made  an  at- 
tempt to  seize  power  and  make  the  Church  inde- 
pendent of  autocracy ;  this  led  to  the  Raskol. 
Since  then  the  spirit  of  Nikon  has  whispered  to 
many  a  church  dignitary ;  the  spirit  of  revolution 
thus  permeated  the  very  atmosphere  where  auto- 
cracy lived  and  had  its  being.  This  explains  the 
alacrity  with  which  the  Church,  that  Church 
which  so  many  superficial  writers  on  Russia — 
"Russia  of  stained  glass  and  holy  ikons" — con- 
sidered to  be  the  very  prop  of  Tsardom,  hastened 
to  join  the  recent  Revolution.     It  not  only  denied 


THE   SPIRIT   OF   REVOLT  55 

the  ex-Tsar  Nicholas,  but  also  the  very  principle 
of  autocracy. 

The  spirit  of  revolt  also  manifested  itself  during 
the  reign  of  Alexis  in  the  form  of  popular  risings 
and  Jacqueries,  but  more  especially  in  the  revolt 
of  the  Cossacks  under  the  leadership  of  Stenka 
Razin,  the  famous  robber.  Yet,  was  Stenka  Razin 
an  opponent  of  autocracy  ?  Apparently  he  only 
fought  against  the  boyarins,  the  seigneurs  and 
officials  who,  as  the  peasants  maintained,  were 
keeping  the  Tsar  a  prisoner.  But  vvhat  were  his 
ultimate  aims  ?  There  are  certain  indications  in 
his  attitude  that  seem  to  show  that  he,  like  the 
other  Cossacks,  cared  but  little  for  the  authority 
of  the  Tsar.  Stenka' s  reply  to  the  Tsar's  messenger 
that  "  if  the  Tsar  wished  a  reply  he  should  write 
his  letter  himself"  ;  the  rumour,  which  the  rebel 
himself  spread,  that  he  had  Patriarch  Nikon,  who 
was  then  in  disgrace,  in  his  camp  ;  it  all  tends  to 
show  that  this  leader  of  revolt  was  not  only  fight- 
ing against  the  boyarins  but  also  the  Tsar  himself. 
In  any  case,  the  religious  revolt  of  the  Raskolniks 
and  the  risings  of  the  peasants  and  the  Cossacks 
all  met  with  the  same  fate.  They  were  all  merci- 
lessly crushed.  The  persecutions  of  the  Raskolniks 
were  marked  with  the  cruelty  and  bloodthirstiness, 
and  the  stoicism  and  heroism  which  characterise 
all  religious  movements  and  persecutions.  The 
sufferings  of  the  Raskolniks  at  the  hands  of  the 
autocracy  add  but  one  more  chapter  to  the  blood- 
stained history  of  crimes  committed  in  the  name 
of  religion. 

The  Russian  people  were  oppressed  more  and 
more  until  their  situation  became  almost  unbear- 
able ;    this  was  especially  so  after  Peter  the  Great 


56  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

had  introduced  his  reforms,  and  strengthened  the 
power  of  the  Russian  bureaucracy  on  the  model 
of  that  of  Germany.  The  Semski  Sobors  have 
never  ceased  to  exist  in  Russia,  de  jure,  but  de 
factOf  the  Tsars,  especially  since  1698,  have  ceased 
to  convene  them.  Peter  the  Great  Europeanised 
Russia.  That  is  perfectly  true,  but  Peter,  above 
all,  was  anxious  to  strengthen  autocracy.  He 
continued  the  work  of  Vladimir  the  Holy  and  the 
Tsars  of  Moscow.  "  Peter  did  not  disdain  either 
the  sword  of  the  Varangian  Prince  or  the  Cross  of 
Byzantium,  or  even  the  methods  of  the  Mongols, 
the  means  by  which  autocracy  had  established 
its  power  in  Russia.  He  but  added  another 
weapon  to  those  employed  by  his  predecessors  to 
subdue  the  Russian  democratic  soul ;  this  weapcm 
was  the  pen  of  the  bureaucrat."  ^ 

Peter  the  Great  drew  his  inspiration  from  the 
autocratic  institutions  of  France  as  they  existed 
in  the  days  of  Richelieu.  "  If  I  had  had  the  good 
luck,"  said  Russia's  great  reformer  when  standing 
before  Richelieu's  tomb,  "to  come  across  such  a 
Cabinet  Minister,  I  would  gladly  have  presented 
him  with  half  my  kingdom  on  condition  that  he 
would  teach  me  how  to  govern  the  other  half." 
He  found  no  Russian  Richelieu,  so  he  imported 
Richelieu's  bureaucratic  principles,  those  principles 
that  garrotted  France  until  1789,  into  Russia. 
It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  the 
German  philosopher  Leibnitz  who  was  largely  re- 
sponsible for  Peter's  reforms  and  who  urged  the 
Tsar  to  introduce  the  bureaucratic  regime  into 
Russia.  It  has  taken  the  Russian  people  two 
centuries  fully  to  appreciate  this  service  that  Ger- 

1  B^rard,  I.e.,  p,  316. 


THE  SPIRIT   OF  REVOLT  57 

many  once  rendered  them.  I  admit  that  Peter 
was  a  revokitionary,  a  Jacobin  on  the  throne  of 
the  Tsars,  yet,  if  he  worked  for  Russian  civilisation, 
he  also  worked,  and  chiefly,  for  the  benefit  of  his 
dynasty,  for  Imperialism  as  opposed  to  democracy. 
Russia  could  not  follow  him,  would  not  follow 
him,  because  the  soul  of  Russia  is  naturally  demo- 
cratic. Napoleon  raised  France  to  the  summit  of 
glory,  but  France  had  become  democratic  and  had 
learned  to  hate  Imperialism.  It  felt  instinctively 
that  Imperialism  is  the  glory  of  the  dynasty,  of 
the  ruling  classes,  but  not  of  democracy.  Demo- 
cracy and  Imperialism  can  never  work  hand  in 
hand,  for  the  one  means  the  negation  of  the  other. 

This  Imperial  idea,  originated  by  Peter  and  con- 
tinued by  Catherine  II,  was  utilised  in  the  service 
of  Tsardom  against  the  people.  The  reforms  were 
not  a  goal,  but  a  means  to  the  strengthening  of 
Tsardom  and  absolutism.  The  people  became 
inanimate  material,  and  the  aristocracy  a  willing 
tool  in  the  hands  of  Tsardom.  But  the  spirit  of 
revolt  was  not  dead  ;  it  arose  among  the  boy ar ins, 
and  expressed  itself  in  their  palace  revolutions  ; 
the  method  was  ancient  and  mediaeval,  but  methods 
change  with  the  times.  They  reminded  Tsardom 
of  Russia's  Magna  Charta  :  "La  tyrannic  tem- 
peree  par  I'assassinat."  It  may  be  said  that  the 
Russian  aristocracy,  after  Razin  and  Pougatshev, 
found  a  more  memorable  method  in  1762  and 
1801,  when  Peter  III  and  Paul  I  were  throttled, 
to  teach  future  terrorists  how  to  wage  war  against 
Tsars  when  they  refused  to  listen  to  peaceful  de- 
mands. That  was  the  spirit  of  revolt  as  expressed 
by  the  boyarins. 

Thus  Peter  the  Great's  abandonment,  to  a  cer- 


58  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tain  extent,  of  Byzantine  culture — and  leaving  a 
way  of  entrance  for  German  kultur — not  only 
hopelessly  alienated  the  Russian  people  from 
autocracy  and  widened  the  existing  gulf  between 
them,  but  also  gave  a  new  stimulus  to  the  spirit 
of  revolt  which  was  but  waiting  for  an  opportunity 
to  settle  accounts  with  Tsardom.  Peter  surrounded 
himself  with  foreigners  who  helped  him,  not  to 
govern,  but  to  oppress,  rob  and  deceive  the  nation. 
Bureaucracy,  recruited  from  among  the  German 
adventurers,  became  the  servant  of  autocracy, 
and  the  oppressor  and  enemy  of  the  people,  who 
hated  both  the  servant  and  the  master,  but  by  its 
very  powerlessness  was  condemned  to  silence. 
The  more  hostile  and  rotten  the  official  state 
machinery  became,  the  stronger  grew  the  revo- 
lutionary spirit.  For  two  centuries  the  Russians 
could  rightly  lament  and  say  :  "  And  Germans  rule 
over  us.  Our  Tsars  and  Tsaritzas  know  us  not,  for 
they  are  strangers,  usurpers,  foreigners  among  us." 
And  the  discontent  among  the  peasants  con- 
tinued to  grow  ;  at  the  slightest  opportunity  there 
were  peasant  risings  and  Jacqueries.  It  was  the 
accumulated  feeling  of  popular  consciousness 
struggling  for  manifestation.  The  antagonism  be- 
tween the  people  and  its  rulers,  between  the  slaves 
and  the  oppressors,  was  becoming  too  great ; 
autocracy  had  to  thank  the  fatalism,  the  resigna- 
tion which  the  Byzantine  religion  had  taught  the 
Russian  people,  that  it  was  allowed  to  remain  in 
power  for  another  century  or  two.  When  the 
antagonism  finally  reached  its  summit,  when  the 
revolutionary  forces  were  at  last  fully  organised, 
there  was  nothing  that  could  save  the  Tsars  from 
their  destinv. 


THE   SPIRIT   OF  REVOLT  59 

During  the  reign  of  Catherine  II  the  spirit  of 
revolt  manifested  itself  frequently  among  the  pea- 
sants. In  1773  Catherine's  throne  seemed  sud- 
denly to  totter.  The  threatened  danger  was  the 
revolt  of  Pougatshev,  who  was  joined  by  the  dis- 
contented peasants,  Cossacks  and  Raskolniks. 
The  revolt  was  quelled  with  much  bloodshed,  and 
the  friend  of  Voltaire  and  Diderot  availed  herself 
of  this  pretext  to  put  an  end  to  the  military  re- 
publics of  the  Cossacks  on  the  Dnieper,  and  to 
destroy  their  Sietsh.  When  the  French  Revolu- 
tion broke  out,  the  Tsaritza  saw  in  it  a  danger  to 
autocracy,  and  immediately  all  her  so-called 
liberalism  disappeared  as  if  by  magic.  Perhaps 
she  foresaw  that  the  example  of  France  would 
sooner  or  later  be  followed  in  Russia,  where,  the 
revolutionary  forces  having  taken  longer  to  develop 
and  evolve,  the  great  upheaval  would  be  the  more 
radical.  ''  As  soon  as  Catherine  heard  of  the 
French  Revolution,"  whites  Sorel,^  "  she  hated 
it.'*  "  Cette  revolution  heurtait  ses  id^es,  con- 
trariait  ses  passions,  genait  sa  politique."  A 
constitutional  monarch,  to  Catherine,  was  only  an 
"  allie  en  peinture."  The  French  assembly  was 
but  a  hvdra  with  twelve  hundred  heads,  and  she 
despised  the  King  who  permitted  himself  to  be 
dictated  to  by  those  bourgeois.  Knout  and  mines 
could  not  eradicate  such  tendencies.'  This  Ger- 
man princess  on  the  Russian  throne  was  more 
autocratic  than  any  autocrat.  The  French  Revo- 
lution   and   the   revolt    of   Pougatshev    were   two 

1  Cf.  Albert  Sorel,  UEurope  et  la  Bevolutioyi  Francaise,  vol.  ii, 
p.  32. 

3  Cf.  also  Ch.  de  Lariviere,  Catherine  II  et  la  E6volution 
FrauQaise, 


60  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

spectres  which  she  could  never  forget.  From  a  so- 
called  liberal,  the  Empress  became  a  reactionary, 
an  upholder  of  autocracy  and  absolutism.  She 
who  had  dreamt  of  reforms,  of  the  emancipation 
of  the  serfs  and  of  convening  a  National  Assembly, 
became  the  persecutor  of  the  liberalism  that  was 
raising  its  voice  in  Russia.  For  it  was  during  the 
reign  of  Catherine  that  the  Russian  spirit  of  revolt 
that  lay  dormant  in  the  people  and  struggled  to 
manifest  itself,  that  occasionally  with  sheer  brutal 
force  revealed  itself  by  a  Palace  Revolution,  an 
assassination,  a  revolt,  an  insurrection,  peasant 
risings  and  Jacqueries,  first  became  articulate. 
Henceforth  it  grew  and  crystallised,  expressed 
itself  first  in  words,  and  later  in  deeds. 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  creation  of  all  great 
movements  as  well  as  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment in  Russia.  Since  the  reign  of  Catherine  the 
spirit  of  revolt  in  Russia  has  expressed  itself  in 
songs  and  satires,  and  also  in  history,  philosophy 
and  sociology.  In  a  subsequent  chapter,  The 
Poets,  Philosophers  and  Sociologists,  I  shall  treat 
of  the  share  taken  by  the  thinkers,  poets,  philo- 
osophers  and  prophets  in  the  Russian  Revolution, 
and  the  place  they  hold  among  the  pioneers. 
Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  the  stimulus  which  the 
spirit  of  revolt  in  Russia  received  from  abroad,  and 
especially  from  France,  soon  manifested  itself  in 
an  organised  insurrection,  which,  unfortunately, 
was  premature  and  therefore  failed.  It  was  the 
insurrection  of  the  Decembrists,  the  work  of 
officers  and  aristocrats.  It  failed  because  it  was 
the  conspiracy  of  but  one  discontented  group. 
Like  the  Palace  Revolutionaries  of  1762  and  1801, 
the  officers  and  nobles  who  throttled  Peter  III  and 


THE  SPIRIT  OF  REVOLT  61 

Paul  I,  the  Decembrists  were  men  of  noble  birth. 
The  only  difference  was,  that  in  the  course  of 
time  these  seigneurs  had  adopted  new  ideas,  had 
become  ideal-political  dreamers,  instead  of  real- 
political.  The  Palace  Revolutionaries  of  1762  and 
1801  only  desired  to  satisfy  a  personal  vengeance, 
to  effect  a  change,  to  put  one  Tsar  in  place  of 
another  upon  the  throne,  but  the  Decembrists 
aimed  at  a  political  revolution. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE  DECEMBRISTS 

The  Napoleonic  vrars  of  1813-1814  had  a  far- 
reaching  eliect  upon  the  development  of  political 
ideas  in  Russia.  During  their  sojourn  in  Paris  the 
Russian  ofiicers,  recruited  among  the  most  edu- 
cated and  idealistically  inclined  nobility,  had 
familiarised  themselves  with  Western  civilisation 
and  culture.  They  were  deeply  impressed  by  the 
difierence  between  the  old  political  system  prevalent 
in  Russia  and  the  liberal  and  democratic  institu- 
tions of  the  West.  The  constitutional  government 
of  Western  Europe  greatly  attracted  them,  and 
made  them  feel  ashamed  for  their  own  country,  for 
Russia  humiliated,  as  it  were,  by  the  yoke  of 
autocracy.  The  officers  returned  home  with  their 
minds  full  of  new  conceptions  and  varied  political 
ideas  that  were  then  but  little  known  in  Russia. 
What  they  saw  in  their  own  country  then  filled 
them  with  discontent  and  disgust.  On  the  one 
hand,  they  saw  an  arbitrary,  despotic  government, 
and,  on  the  other,  oppressed,  enslaved  and  poverty- 
stricken  masses.  This  discontent  sprea,d  in  the 
army,  from  the  generals  down  to  the  soldiers. 

"  We  have  shed  our  blood  in  the  service  of  the 
country,"  murmured  these  latter,  "  and  now  we 
are  made   to   work   for  the   seigneurs.     We  have 

C2 


THE   DECEMBRISTS  68 

saved  the  country  from  a  foreign  tyrant,  and,  as  a 
reward  for  our  services,  we  are  being  tyrannised 
over  by  the  seigneurs  and  by  our  own  Govern- 
ment." x\nd  the  young  officers  who  had  returned 
from  abroad  also  could  not  remain  silent  spec- 
tators of  the  general  misery  and  the  deplorable 
state  of  aflairs. 

They  began  to  organise  circles  and  clubs  where 
they  read  philosophical  and  sociological  works  and 
discussed  political  ideas  and  questions.  They 
eagerly  read  those  foreign  papers  that  dealt  with 
the  struggle  of  the  Opposition  against  the  Govern- 
ment in  the  constitutional  assemblies  of  the  West. 
How  anxious  these  Russians  were  to  see  such  a 
fight  for  freedom,  such  political  activity  at  w^ork 
in  their  own  country !  A  positive  fever  of 
liberalism  seized  young  Russia  ;  the  revolutionary 
and  liberal  principles  which,  to  the  Russians, 
accustomed  as  they  were  to  oppression,  autocracy 
and  bureaucracy,  seemed  to  have  been  realised  in 
the  West,  were  accepted  with  enthusiasm  by  the 
Russian  youth.  "  Since  the  return  of  the  Russian 
armies  from  the  West,"  writes  Nicholas  Tour- 
geniev,^  "  liberal  ideas  are  beginning  to  propagate 
themselves  very  rapidly  in  Russia." 

Full  of  a  high  sense  of  their  own  personal  dignity, 
the  J^oung  officers  were  anxious  to  play  a  pro- 
minent role  in  the  regeneration  of  their  country. 
They  had  helped  to  liberate  France  from  the 
tyranny  of  Napoleon,  yet  a  more  shameful  tyranny 
existed  in  their  own  Russia.  They  had  helped  to 
set  a  strange  house  in  order  ;  was  it  not  high  time 
to  set  their  ovra  house  in  order  ?     Their  eves  had 

ft/ 

been    opened.     They    found    absolute    despotism 

1  La  Russie  et  les  Busses,  Paris,  1847,  vol.  i,  pp.  94-5. 


64  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

holding  its  sway  through  all  classes  of  Russian 
society.  Araktsheev  ruled  supreme,  the  Govern- 
ment oppressed  the  nation,  the  officials  treated  the 
civilians  like  so  many  servants.  The  officials  were 
not  appointed  for  the  people  ;  the  latter  seemed 
to  exist  solely  for  the  benefit  of  the  former.  The 
majority  of  the  Russian  people  were  still  dis- 
honoured by  the  yoke  of  serfdom  ;  legislation  was 
in  a  state  of  chaos,  the  law  devoid  of  sanction,  and 
its  exact  application  compromised  by  the  arbitrari- 
ness and  the  venality  of  the  officials.^ 

"  The  officers  and  other  military  men,"  writes 
Tourgeniev,  "  who  had  visited  foreign  countries 
related  what  they  had  seen  abroad  and  attracted 
public  attention  by  their  freedom  of  manner, 
especially  in  speech  and  general  behaviour."  ' 
But  not  only  the  officers,  even  the  common  soldiers 
had  come  into  contact  with  other  troops — men 
who  were  used  to  a  different  kind  of  discipline, 
and  they,  too,  began  to  feel  that  something  was 
wrong  in  Russia,  and  that  a  change  was  urgently 
needed.  The  innate  craving  of  the  Slav  for  liberty 
was  aroused ;  the  spirits  of  Pougatshev  and 
Stenka  Rasin  seemed  to  beckon  to  the  Russian 
peasant  and  soldier  to  rise  and  throw  off  the 
shackles  of  thraldom,  of  Byzantine  autocracy  and 
German  bureaucracy,  and  to  re-introduce  the  old, 
free  institutions  of  the  ancient  Slavs. 

A  propaganda  of,  as  yet,  a  vague  and  hazy 
liberalism  spread  among  the  youth  of  Russia ; 
their  young  brains  seethed  with  new  ideas.  These 
young  enthusiasts  foregathered  to  discuss  plans  of 
reform  and  to  devise  means  of  carrying  them  into 

1  Cf.  Rouaskaya  Staruia,  1884,  vol.  xiii,  p.  31  ff. 
«  Ibid.,  pp.  81-4. 


o       •    •  ,  •     ', 


J      J    .      1    .• 


«.     '    '        > 


,      '    ,"     o    J      »■> 


'  V*  >  \  ff.vit»i- 7.-^ 


O 


r;-c'- 


1-1 


P3 


■;ii 


II 


: 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  65 

effect.  While  abroad  they  had  learnt  about  and 
made  the  acquaintance  of  various  secret  societies. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  even  in  the  West 
real  liberal  thought,  both  religious  and  political, 
was  for  a  long  time  confined  to  a  small  circle  of 
adepts  who  met  each  other  in  secret,  and  were  thus 
able  to  prepare  their  plans  without  being  exposed 
to  the  vulgar  contempt  of  a  populace  still  too 
ignorant  to  comprehend  them. 

This  example  was  followed  in  Russia,  and  various 
secret  societies  were  established.  The  need  for 
them  was  even  greater  than  in  the  West.  These 
societies  became  very  numerous ;  but,  at  any  rate 
at  first,  the  majority  of  them  were  quite  inoffen- 
sive ;  they  were  secret  only  in  name,  for  they  were 
not  at  all  hostile  to  the  supreme  authority.^  They 
never  went  beyond  discussions,  for  their  faith  in 
Alexander's  liberalism  was  still  great,  and  they 
firmly  believed  that  the  Tsar  would  soon  grant 
Russia  a  constitution.  This  hope,  however,  was 
soon  frustrated. 

Alexander  I,  a  pupil  of  Laharpe,  had  gathered 
round  him  a  bevy  of  young  men  seething  with 
ideas  for  a  regeneration  of  Russia.  The  ideal  of 
the  men  who  had  for  some  time  influenced  the 
Tsar  was  to  establish  a  national  and  representa- 
tive government.  From  1806  to  1812,  the  man 
who  exercised  the  most  preponderating  influence 
over  Alexander  I  was  Michael  Speransky,  the  son 
of  a  village  priest  and  a  professor  of  mathema- 
tics and  philosophy.  For  some  time,  Speransky, 
who  had  become  Secretary  of  State,  enjoyed  the 
full  confidence  of  the  Tsar  to  whom  he  submitted 
a   plan    of  reforms    extending   to   the   legislative, 

^  Pmpin,  I.e.,  pp.  511-14;   Rappoport,  I.e.,  p.  378. 

5 


66  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

adminsitrative  and  judicial  powers  of  Russia.  He 
had  a  great  admiration  for  French  institutions, 
and  this  fact  gave  his  enemies  a  pretext  to  de- 
nounce him  as  a  traitor  when  Russia  was  on  the 
verge  of  war  with  France.  Speransky  was  sud- 
denly arrested  and  sent  to  Nijny  Novgorod.  He 
was  liberated  in  1816,  and  reinstated  in  favour, 
but  he  never  regained  his  former  position. 

The  fall  of  Speransky,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
war  with  Napoleon  on  the  other,  put  an  end  to 
all  talk  of  reform.  The  enemies  of  Speransky 
were  in  power ;  Karamzin,  the  great  historian, 
made  himself  the  champion  of  autocracy.^  Then 
Araktsheev,  the  Pobiedonostzev  at  the  beginning 
of  the  ninteenth  century,  the  sworn  enemy  of  all 
new  ideas  and  reforms,  the  champion  of  absolutism 
and  autocracy,  became  all-powerful.  After  his 
return  from  France  the  Tsar  continued  to  favour 
Araktsheev,  and  it  was  on  the  latter' s  advice  that 
military  colonies  were  first  introduced  into 
Russia  :  a  system  borrowed  from  Austria.  The 
peasants  opposed  this  measure,  and  revolts  broke 
out,  which  were  quelled  with  extraordinary 
severity. 

Alexander  had  been  greeted  in  Europe  as  the 
"  liberator  of  nations  "  and  a  "  restorer  of  peace  !  " 
But,  alas,  "  liberators  of  nations  "  are  not  always 
the  friends  of  real  liberty,  and  "  restorers  of  peace  " 
often  shed  oceans  of  blood.  At  best,  Alexander's 
liberal  ideas  had  only  been  a  pose,  and  his  taste 
for  constitutional  governments  resembled  that  of 
a  dilettante  who  goes  into  ecstasies  over  a  beautiful 
picture.     Napoleon  and  Metternich  had  exercised 

*  Cf.  A.  S.  Rappoport,  The  Curae  of  the  Romanovfi,  pp. 
370-3. 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  67 

a  deep  influence  upon  him  :    they  had  laboured  to 
prove  to  him  the  futility  of  his  generous  ideas. 

After  his  second  visit  to  Paris,  the  Tsar's  re- 
actionary policy  became  more  and  more  manifest. 
He  had  concluded  the  Holy  Alliance.  Ostensibly 
it  was  a  treaty  signed  by  three  sovereigns  who 
solemnly  promised  "  to  govern  their  subjects  in 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  and  to  be  guided  by  the 
principles  of  justice,  love  and  peace."  In  reality, 
however,  it  was  a  league  of  rulers  against  their 
subjects,  against  the  hydra-head  of  democracy  and 
revolution.  A  league  of  sovereigns,  of  rulers,  of 
governments,  no  matter  whether  they  be  termed 
Autocrats,  Tsars,  Kaisers,  monarchs,  or  even  oli- 
garchic republics,  are  edifices  whose  foundations 
have  been  laid  on  quicksand.  All  such  treaties 
have,  as  a  general  rule,  proved  to  be  merely  a 
"  scrap  of  paper,"  and  have  never  been  the  founda- 
tion of  real,  permanent  peace :  this  can  only  be 
secured  as  the  result  of  a  treaty  concluded  by  a 
''  league  of  nations"  or  a  "  confraternity  of  men." 
But  when  I  say  "  a  league  of  nations  "  or  a  "  con- 
fraternity of  men "  I  do  not  mean  treaties  con- 
cluded by  a  dozen  or  more  statesmen  or  diplomatists 
who  pretend  to  speak  in  the  name  of  peoples  or 
nations,  but  treaties  in  the  drawing  up  of  which 
the  nations  have  had  a  hand,  which  represent  their 
wishes  and  desires  after  due  opportunity  has  been 
given  them  to  express  these,  for  one  must  clearly 
distinguish  between  a  real  league  of  nations  and  a 
league  of  statesmen,  all  belonging  to  the  wealthy 
and  governing  classes.  The  gulf  between  the 
interests  of  the  governing  and  the  governed  classes, 
between  Capital  and  Labour,  has  not  yet  been 
bridged. 


68  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  Holy  Alliance,  concluded  by  three  sovereigns 
in  the  name  of  Christianity,  justice  and  peace, 
proved  the  cause  of  injustice,  reaction  and  war 
for  the  coming  century.  It  became  a  league  of 
rulers  against  the  nations,^  The  Tsar  was  entirely 
under  the  influence  of  Araktsheev,  Austria,  and 
Metternich.  The  revolutionary  spirit  in  Europe 
was  raising  its  wings  ;  the  sovereigns,  anxious  to 
preserve  their  power,  grew  alarmed,  and  govern- 
ments became  animated  by  a  movement  of  reaction. 
It  was  chiefly  Austria  which  initiated  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  ancient  regime  of  absolute 
monarchy.*  The  Tsar  now  opposed  every  effort 
of  his  subjects  towards  liberalism,  and  endeavoured 
to  nip  in  the  bud  the  feeble  blossom,  the  seeds  of 
which  he  himself  had  helped  to  sow.  He  showed 
himself  the  champion  of  absolute  monarchy  and 
autocracy.  Forgotten  were  all  his  early  promises, 
forgotten  the  dreams  of  his  youth.  He  had  granted 
a  constitution  to  Poland,  but  the  Poles  soon 
learnt  that  the  promises  of  an  autocrat,  be  his 
title  Tsar  or  Kaiser,  to  grant  reforms,  freedom 
or  independence,  are  mere  soap-bubbles.  These 
rulers  of  millions  simply  put  the  beverage  of  op- 
pression into  bottles  and  label  it  "  freedom,"  The 
label  cannot  deceive  the  consumer  once  he  has 
tasted  the  much-advertised  drink.  But  in  justice 
to  autocrats  I  must  add  that  this  statement  may 
frequently  be  applied  to  constitutional  and  demo- 
cratic governments. 

Alexander's  reactionary  tendencies  became  even 
more  noticeable  in  the  Congresses  of  Aix-la-Chapelle, 

1  Cf.  Puipin,  Die  geistigen  Bewegungen  in  Ruaaland,  Berlin, 
1894,  p.  543. 

2  Cf.  Ibid.,  p.  618-19. 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  69 

Troppau,  Laybach,  Verona,  and  Vienna.  He  aban- 
doned the  cause  of  Greece  in  the  interests  of  Euro- 
pean diplomacy,  and,  instead  of  becoming  the 
protector  of  the  freedom  of  Greece,  he  refused  to 
favour  the  insurrection  of  his  brothers  in  rehgion.^ 
The  European  governments,  writes  Madame 
Choiseul-Goufher,  saw  in  the  efforts  of  the  Greeks 
to  recover  their  independence  a  dangerous  revo- 
lutionary spirit ;  a  spirit  which,  for  forty  years, 
had  been  working  to  undermine  the  thrones  of 
Europe  and  "  to  overthrow  the  powers  established 
by  law  and  by  divine  sanction."  For  the  sake  of 
this  divine  sanction  the  Tsar  sacrificed  the  inde- 
pendence of  Greece.' 

"  Alexander,"  writes  Puipin,  "  became,  in  fact, 
the  leader  of  European  reaction,  and  not  only  did 
he  show  himself  the  enemy  of  the  liberal  aspira- 
tions of  the  Italians  and  Spaniards,  but  Russian 
troops  played  the  role  of  gendarmes  in  the  service 
of  the  absolute  monarchies  of  Europe."  ^  The 
reactionary  evolution  in  the  mind  of  the  Tsar 
was  hastened  by  two  events.  His  agent  Kotzebue 
was  assassinated  by  Maurice  Sand  and  his  favourite 
regiment  of  the  Semeonovsky  Guards  mutinied  as 
the  result  of  the  cruel  treatment  meted  out  to  it 
by  its  colonel,  a  German  named  Schwartz.  The 
Tsar  was  then  at  Troppau,  and  Metternich  craftily 
availed  himself  of  this  latter  incident  to  prove 
to  the  Tsar  the  crass  absurdity  of  allowing  his  sub- 
jects even  the  semblance  of  liberty. 

The  natural  result  of  Alexander's  attitude  was 
a  steady  increase  of  the  brooding  discontent,  and 

1  Cf.  Rappoport,  I.e.,  p.  380. 

»Cf.  Choiseul-Gouffier,  Memoirea,  Paris,  1829,  pp.  300-8. 
Puipin,  Z.c,  p.  625. 


70  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

also  the  reconstruction  on  a  new  basis  of  the  secret 
societies.  The  "  Society  of  Virtue,"  which  later 
developed  into  the  "  Northern  and  Southern 
Leagues,"  was  one  of  the  most  famous  of  these 
secret  organisations  during  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  This  society  was  the  idea  of 
a  few  officers  ;  at  first,  they  merely  intended  to 
form  a  sort  of  Tugendbund,  a  group  of  highly 
honest  people  who  would  make  it  their  life's  work 
to  oppose  injustice  and  oppression.  In  1816,  the 
idea  was  still  being  discussed,  but  in  1817  it  was 
finally  realised  and  the  society  formed.  The  first 
members  were :  Prince  Troubetzkvy,  Prince  Lo- 
pukhin,  A.  Mouraviev,  N.  Mouraviev,  Glinka, 
Shipov,  Novikov,  Lunin  and  Colonel  Pestel.  This 
group  was  called,  according  to  some,  the  "  Society 
of  the  true  and  faithful  Sons  of  the  Fatherland," 
and,  according  to  others,  "the  League  of  Virtue." 
At  first  the  members  of  this  society  devoted  them- 
selves wholly  to  the  burning  question  of  the 
emancipation  of  the  serfs,  and  tried  to  induce  the 
nobility  to  approach  the  Tsar  about  it.  Convinced 
that  the  reactionary  nobility  would  never  consent 
to  such  a  measure,  the  League  adopted  the 
policy  of  introducing  a  constitutional  monarchy 
into  Russia.  Pestel  elaborated  the  rules  and 
statutes  of  the  society,  which  showed  many  traces 
of  Masonic  influence.  This  first  League  had  but  a 
very  short  existence ;    it  was  dissolved  in  1818, 

In  its  place  a  new  League  with  the  following 
objects,  according  to  A.  Mouraviev,  was  founded  : 
(1)  The  abolition  of  serfdom  ;  (2)  Equality  of  all 
citizens  before  the  law  ;  (3)  Publicity  of  State 
business  ;  (4)  Abolition  of  the  alcohol  monopoly  ; 
(5)  The  amelioration  of  the  fate  of  the  defenders 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  71 

of  the  country  ;  (6)  The  amehoration  of  the  status 
of  the  clergy,  etc.  The  chief  aims  of  the  League 
were  the  "  general  welfare,"  and,  above  all,  the 
abolition  of  autocracy  and  the  introduction  of  a 
representative  government.  This  new  group,  or 
League,  endeavoured  to  recruit  its  members  chiefly 
from  the  army,  especially  the  superior  officers  who 
were  in  a  position  to  propagate  their  liberal  ideas 
in  their  regiments.  But  even  this  new  League  was 
but  a  feeble  affair ;  it  only  numbered  fifty-six 
members.  It  was  divided  into  the  Northern  and 
the  Southern  Leagues.  The  former  was  in  favour 
of  a  constitutional  monarchy,  whilst  the  latter, 
influenced  by  Pest  el,  desired  a  republic.  Under 
these  circumstances  quarrels  soon  arose  between 
the  members,  some  of  whom  promptly  demanded 
the  League  should  be  dissolved. 

In  1821  a  meeting  was  held  at  Moscow,  and  the 
members  were  then  informed  by  Theodor  Glinka, 
adjutant  of  Miloradovitsh,  Governor-General  of  St. 
Petersburg,  that  the  Government  were  aware  of 
the  existence  of  the  societv.  This  was  a  new  reason 
for  its  dissolution,  and,  in  accordance  with  the 
demands  of  several  of  the  members,  it  was  formally 
stated  that  the  League  was  no  more.  As  a.  matter 
of  fact,  however,  this  was  merely  a  ruse  to  get  rid 
of  the  irresolute  members  ;  though  officially  dis- 
solved, the  League  was  reconstructed  and  continued 
its  activities  at  St.  Petersburg  as  the  Northern 
League,  and  at  Tultshin  as  the  Southern  League. 
The  Southern  League  was  practically  under  the 
leadership  of  Pestel,  whilst  the  Northern  League 
was  influenced  by  Troubetzkoy,  ]Mouraviev, 
Obolenski  and  Ryleev.  The  Northerners  believed 
that  the  first  steps  should  be  devoted  to  propa- 


72  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

ganda,  whilst  the  Southerners  preferred  drastic 
measures  and  definite  activity.  "  Les  demi- 
mesures,"  wrote  Pest  el,  "  ne  valent  rien,  i9i  nous 
voulons  avoir  maison  nette." 

In  1824,  Pest  el  arrived  at  St.  Petersburg  and 
declared  himself  very  dissatisfied  with  the  work 
of  his  colleagues.  He  again  urged  more  decisive 
measures,  briefly :  the  extermination  of  all  the 
members  of  the  Imperial  family  ;  the  compelling 
the  Senate  and  the  Holy  Synod  to  recognise  the 
Secret  Society  as  the  Provisional  Government ;  the 
demanding  that  the  people,  the  army  and  the  navy 
should  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Pro- 
visional Government,  and  thus  gradually,  in  the 
course  of  a  few  years,  introduce  a  new  order  of 
things.  But  such  measures  greatly  displeased  the 
members  of  the  Northern  League,  especially  N. 
Mouraviev,  who,  therefore,  strenuously  opposed 
the  amalgamation  of  the  two  Leagues.  The 
result,  naturally,  was  a  lack  of  unity  and  com- 
mon policy  fatal  to  any  thought  of  effective 
revolution. 

The  two  Leagues  could  never  agree  on  certain 
questions ;  for  instance,  as  to  the  fate  that  should 
befall  the  members  of  the  Imperial  family.  After 
they  had  decided  upon  the  convocation  of  a  Con- 
stitutional Assembly,  Ryleev  once  asked  his  col- 
leagues :  "  But  suppose  the  Emperor  refuses  to 
sanction  the  Constitution  elaborated  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  nation,  what  then  ?  Shall  we 
send  him  abroad  ?  "  "  That  would  be  the  best 
way,"  replied  Troubetzkoy.  Others,  however, 
were  of  the  opinion  that  such  a  step  would  prove 
very  dangerous  for  the  future  ;  it  would  be  much 
wiser  to  keep  the  Imperial  family  in  the  Winter 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  78 

Palace,  where  it  would  be  possible  to  keep  an  eye 
upon  them.  "  No,"  replied  Ryleev ;  "  that  would 
not  do  at  all ;  it  would  be  better  for  us  to  conduct 
them  to  Schluesselburg,  where  they  could  be 
guarded  by  the  old  Semeonovsky  regiment,  and 
then,  in  case  of  a  counter-revolution,  we  could 
follow  the  example  of  Mirovitsh." 

Yet  the  majority  of  the  conspirators  objected 
both  to  the  plan  of  sending  the  Imperial  family 
into  exile,  or  of  keeping  them  prisoners  at  Schlues- 
selburg. They  preferred  to  exterminate  the  entire 
Romanov  family,  and  at  last  even  Ryleev,  who  at 
first  had  strenuously  opposed  such  a  solution, 
admitted  that  it  would  be  in  the  best  interests  of 
the  country.  They  reasoned  that  the  mere  assas- 
sination of  the  Emperor  would  only  bring  about 
confusion,  divergence  of  opinion  and,  finally,  a 
popular  revolution  in  favour  of  one  or  other  mem- 
ber of  the  Imperial  family.  The  absolute  disap- 
pearance of  all  the  members  of  the  Imperial  family, 
and  thus  of  all  pretenders  to  the  Crown,  would 
naturally  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  republic. 
Despite  all  this,  certain  ^\Titings  of  various  mem- 
bers of  the  Secret  League,  such  as  the  memoirs  of 
Davydov,  one  of  the  most  intimate  friends  of 
Pestel,  prove  that  the  talk  of  exterminating  the 
Imperial  family  was  mere  revolutionary  chatter, 
that  in  reality  the  conspira.tors  did  not  believe  such 
a  step  necessary  ;  they  would  have  been  quite 
satisfied  with  the  mere  expulsion  of  the  Romanovs 
from  Russia. 

Towards  the  end  of  1824,  Jakubovitsh,  a  guard 
officer,  returned  from  the  Caucasus,  where,  while 
valiantly  fighting  against  the  Georgian  moun- 
taineers, he  had  been  wounded.     Jakubovitsh  was 


74  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

not  only  dissatisfied  with  but  had  a  personal 
grudge  against  the  Government  and  the  Tsar ; 
his  services  had  not  been  sufficiently  rewarded. 
Alexander  Bestyoushev  introduced  Jakubovitsh 
to  Ryleev,  Prince  Obolenski  and  a  few  other  mem- 
bers of  the  League.  The  guard  officer  told  them 
in  confidence  that  he  had  decided  to  assassinate 
the  Tsar,  since  he  believed  that  by  so  doing  he 
would  render  a  greater  service  to  his  country  than 
a  host  of  theorising  conspirators  would  ever  do. 
Although  the  members  of  the  League  had  often 
discussed  not  only  the  assassination  of  the  Tsar 
but  that  of  his  entire  family,  this  emphatic  declara- 
tion seemed  to  crush  them.  As  I  have  said, 
their  discussions  were  merely  revolutionary  phrase- 
ology, and  therefore,  when  some  one  declared  himself 
ready  to  become  a  regicide  in  fact,  the  regicides 
en  th6orie  were  startled. 

It  is  an  odd  fact,  but  even  a  little  study  of  the 
history  of  human  thought  and  action  will  prove 
its  truth,  that  few  of  the  adherents  of  great 
social,  political  and  religious  movements  are  men  of 
action  ;  this  is  especially  true  of  all  revolutionary 
movements  ;  the  majority  are  but  adherents  in 
theory,  platonic  admirers  and  supporters  as  it 
were ;  and  when  their  preaching  and  confessions  de 
foi  are  put  to  the  test,  they  are  quite  embarrassed. 
There  are  plenty  of  anarchists  en  thdorie  who  talk 
largely  of  bomb-throwing  and  the  employment  of 
other  violent  means  of  gaining  their  object,  but 
put  these  to  the  test  of  action  and  they  are  the 
first  to  wilt  and  hang  back.  There  are  equally  as 
many  upholders  of  great  and  noble  ideals  who 
proclaim,  urbi  et  orbi,  that  they  are  filled  with  the 
spirit  of  altruism  and  a  great  love  for  humanity, 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  75 

but  who  would  be  very  uncomfortable  if  they 
were  asked  to  practise  what  they  so  ardently 
preach. 

Indeed,  humanity  is  always  either  better  or 
worse  than  it  pretends  to  be.  So  it  was  with  the 
Russian  regicides ;  they  were  quite  frightened 
when  they  were  faced  by  brutal  fact.  True,  they 
had  discussed  that  very  thing,  but  then  they  had 
discussed  it  as  something  that  was  to  happen  one 
day  in  the  future,  and  therefore  it  was  as  well  to 
familiarise  oneself  with  the  idea.  Man  often  dis- 
cusses death,  but  that  does  not  prevent  him,  even 
the  philosopher  or  the  preacher,  from  turning  pale 
when  grim  death  at  last  looks  him  in  the  face. 
Ryleev,  Obolenski  and  others  endeavoured  to 
dissuade  Jakubovitsh  from  carrying  out  his  plan. 
Ryleev  even  decided  to  denounce  the  would-be 
regicide  to  the  Government.  But  Jakubovitsh 
was  finally  made  to  promise  that  he  would  not 
attempt  it. 

Meanwhile,  the  organisation,  both  the  Northern 
and  the  Southern  Leagues,  w^ent  on  discussing  plans 
and  means  and  the  propitious  moment  for  the 
revolution,  but  no  one  had  the  courage  to  take  a 
step  forward.  Pestel  alone,  perhaps,  saw  clearly 
all  the  difficulties  in  front  of  them,  and  almost 
despaired  of  ever  accomplishing  anything.  He 
once  told  his  friend  Lorer  that  he  had  decided  to 
go  to  Taganrog,  where  the  Tsar  w^as  then  en  ville- 
giatore,  tell  him  of  the  existence  of  the  secret 
society  and  ask  him  to  put  an  end  to  it  and  its 
probable  future  development  by  granting  liberal 
institutions  and  a  representative  government  to 
Russia.  Lorer,  however,  persuaded  Pestel  that 
his  plan  was  quite  mad  and  very  dangerous,  and, 


76  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

moreover,  that  he  had  no  right  to  take  such  a 
step  without  consulting  his  colleagues  and  fellow- 
conspirators. 

Another  member  of  the  society,  however,  Apostol 
Mouraviev,  had  decided  to  unfurl  the  banner  of 
revolution  at  once.  It  was  known  that  the  Tsar 
was  shortly  to  review  the  Third  Army  Corps  :  it 
was  Mouraviev' s  idea  that  they  should  avail 
themselves  of  this  occasion  to  assassinate  their 
ruler;  then  they  were  to  issue  two  proclamations, 
one  to  the  army  and  the  other  to  the  nation,  and 
begin  the  fight  in  good  earnest.  And  while  the 
Southern  League  was  thus  arranging  matters,  the 
Northern  League  at  St.  Petersburg  were  to  arrest 
the  Imperial  family,  send  them  over  the  frontier 
and  proclaim  a  Provisional  Government.  Apostol 
Mouraviev,  without  consulting  Pestel,  sent  Kornilo- 
vitsh  to  St.  Petersburg  with  details  of  his  plan 
to  the  members  of  the  Northern  League,  but,  des- 
pite his  ardour,  he  could  not  make  either  of  the 
societies  feel  ready  for  such  measures.  Discussions 
and  contradictions  arose  that  weakened  the  strength 
and  unity  of  the  organisation  and  made  many  of 
the  members  lose  faith  in  any  successful  issue  of 
the  revolution.  But  the  political  situation  that 
arose  in  consequence  of  Alexander's  sudden  death 
compelled  the  conspirators  to  unfurl  their  banner 
of  revolution  long  before  they  had  had  time  to 
complete  their  plan  of  action.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Alexander  had  been  aware  of  the  existence 
of  the  society  since  1825,  reports  having  been 
regularly  sent  him  by  various  spies.  Yet  he  died, 
leaving  no  instructions  how  to  deal  with  the  con- 
spirators and  revolutionaries ;  it  was  left  to 
Nicholas  I,  the  Don  Quixote  of  autocracy,  to  sit 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  77 

in  judgment  upon  the  pioneers  of  the  Russian 
Revolution. 

Alexander's  death  opened  the  important  ques- 
tion of  the  succession  to  the  throne.  Alexander 
had  no  male  issue,  but  left  three  brothers — Con- 
stantine,  aged  fifty-nine,  Viceroy  of  Poland,  and 
Nicholas  and  Michael,  who  were  about  twenty 
years  younger  and  had  not  known  their  grand- 
mother Catherine.  But  Constant ine  had  declared 
that  he  did  not  intend  to  accept  the  Crown,  and 
Alexander  had  one  day  said  to  Nicholas  and  his 
wife:  "  You  know  full  well  that  one  day  you  will 
have  to  ascend  the  throne  of  Russia.'* 

In  1820  Constant  ine  had  divorced  his  wife,  a 
Princess  of  Coburg,  and  married  morganatically  a 
beautiful  Polish  lady,  Jeanne  Gredsinska,  for 
whom  he  obtained  the  title  of  Princess  Lowicz. 
On  several  occasions,  also,  he  had  informed  his 
brothers  Nicholas  and  Michael  of  his  decision  to 
refuse  the  Russian  Crown.  Then,  in  January  1822, 
he  had  written  to  Alexander  and  formally  announced 
his  decision  :  "I  possess  neither  the  genius,  talent 
nor  strength  necessary  for  a  sovereign,"  he  stated 
in  this  letter.  Nineteen  days  later  the  Emperor 
informed  Constant  ine  that  both  he  and  the  Em- 
press-iMother  had  accepted  his  abdication.  These 
two  letters,  however,  were  kept  secret,  and  were 
unknown  even  to  Nicholas.  Alexander  then  dic- 
tated a  new  Act,  by  which  he  appointed  his  brother 
Nicholas  to  be  the  successor  to  the  throne.  Four 
copies  were  made  of  this  Act,  which  were  secretly 
deposited  at  the  Holy  Synod,  the  Senate,  the 
Archives  of  the  State  Council  and  with  Arch- 
bishop Philaret  at  the  Church  of  the  Assumption, 
Moscow.     This    secret    was    only    known    to    the 


78  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Empress-Mother,  to  Araktsheev,  Galitsyn  and  the 
Archbishop  Philaret. 

When  the  news  of  Alexander's  death  reached 
St.  Petersburg,  the  first  to  take  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance to  the  new  Tsar  Constantine  was  Nicholas. 
He  did  it  at  the  instigation  of  Miloradovitsh,  who 
declared  he  would  not  be  responsible  for  the 
peace  of  the  capital  if  Nicholas  were  to  be  pro- 
claimed Tsar.  "  You  know  yourself,"  boldly 
declared  Miloradovitsh,  **  that  you  are  not  liked." 
At  the  Imperial  Council  the  question  was  brought 
up  as  to  whether  Alexander's  secret  instructions 
regarding  his  successor  should  be  made  public  or 
no  ;  it  was  the  then  Minister  of  Justice,  Lobanov- 
Rostovski  who  decided  that  "  Les  morts  n'ont  pas 
de  volont^."  Yet  all  were  not  satisfied,  and  some 
of  the  members  of  the  Imperial  Council  therefore 
visited  the  Winter  Palace  to  ask  Nicholas  his  view 
of  the  question.  "  Gentlemen,"  replied  the  Prince, 
"  I  advise  you  to  follow  my  example  and  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  new  Emperor  Constantine 
Pavlovitsh.  I  shall  accept  no  other  proposition 
and  listen  to  no  other  suggestion."  And  thus  it 
was  that  the  Imperial  Council  took  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  new  Tsar. 

In  the  meantime  General  Biebitsh  had  travelled 
to  Warsaw  to  acquaint  Constantine  with  the  death 
of  the  Tsar.  The  new  Tsar  is  supposed  to  have 
passed  a  sleepless  night  debating  the  question : 
To  be  or  not  to  be — Tsar  !  He  sent  but  a  rude 
and  gruff  reply  both  to  his  brother  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Imperial  Council,  but  he  did  not  formally 
abdicate  or  appoint  a  successor.  New  messengers 
were  sent  to  him  at  Warsaw,  to  whom  he  gave 
other  replies,   but  still   no  definite  or  formal  in- 


THE   DECEMBRISTS  79 

structions  concerning  the  succession.  The  posi- 
tion was  a  very  difficult  one.  Nicholas  had  taken 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Constant ine,  who  was  very 
evidently  disinclined  to  take  up  the  burden  of 
Tsardom.  No  one  was  even  sure  of  the  where- 
abouts of  the  new  Emperor.  Such  was  tiie  state 
of  affairs  on  December  14th.  Nicholas  looked 
after  State  affairs  but  did  not  appear  in  public. 

Events,  however,  soon  took  a  new  turn.  Diebitsh, 
while  examining  the  papers  of  the  late  Emperor, 
came  across  data  concerning  the  existence  of  a 
secret  society  pledged  to  overthrow  autocracy. 
Alexander  had  known  of  this  society  since  1820, 
and  in  1821  had  issued  instructions  that  it  was 
to  be  suppressed,  but  from  that  time  onwards 
seemed  to  have  paid  no  further  attention  to  the 
reports  sent  in  to  him  regarding  it.  Diebitsh 
promptly  sent  a  detailed  report  of  the  matter  to 
Nicholas.  That  very  day,  sub-lieutenant  Ros- 
tovtsev,  who  knew  intimately  many  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Northern  League,  wrote  a  letter,  which 
he  personally  handed  in  at  the  Winter  Palace,  in 
which  he  begged  Nicholas  not  to  accept  the  Crown, 
for  he  had  many  enemies  and  it  would  only  mean 
trouble  and  confusion  in  the  Empire,  of  which  the 
inhabitants  of  Poland,  Lithuania,  Finland,  Georgia 
and  Bessarabia  would  naturally  avail  themselves 
in  order  to  throw  off  Russia's  domination.^ 
Rostovtsev  further  advised  Nicholas  to  go  to 
Warsaw  and  personally  endeavour  to  persuade  his 
brother  either  to  accept  the  Crown,  or  come  at 
once  to  the  capital,  formally  and  publicly  announce 
his  abdication  and  appoint  Nicholas  as  his  suc- 
cessor.    "  If    your     Highness,"     continued     Ros- 

1  Russian  Archives,  1873,  p.  449. 


80  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tovtsev,  "  considers  I  have  been  too  daring,  then 
I  am  ready  to  submit  to  the  death  sentence, 
but  if  your  Highness  finds  that  I  am  right,  I 
ask  for  no  other  reward  than  your  Highness' s 
confidence."  ^ 

I  have  said  that  Rostovtsev  had  handed  in  his 
letter  himself.  As  adjutant  to  General  Bistrom 
he  had  been  sent  to  the  Palace  with  a  parcel  for 
Nicholas,  who  personally  accepted  it  and  retired 
to  an  adjoining  room  to  examine  it.  When  he 
opened  the  package  he  discovered  Rostovtsev' s 
letter.  Ten  minutes  elapsed  and  the  young  lieu- 
tenant still  waited.  Then  the  door  of  the  adjoin- 
ing room  suddenly  opened  and  Nicholas  Pavlovitsh 
called  him  in,  locked  the  door  carefully  after  him, 
and  taking  the  young  man  by  the  hand,  kissed 
him  several'^  times.  "  That  is  your  reward,"  he 
said.  Then  Nicholas  asked  the  lieutenant  if  a 
conspiracy  really  did  exist  against  him,  and  if  he 
personally  knew  any  of  the  conspirators.  Ros- 
tovtsev refused  to  betray  any  names,  and  Nicholas 
then  said  that  he  would  not  ask  him  to  do  such 
a  thing.  With  regard  to  the  Crown  he  declared 
that  neither  the  pleadings  of  his  mother  nor  friends 
could  persuade  Constant ine  to  alter  his  decision, 
and  that  therefore,  in  the  interests  of  Russia,  he 
himself  was  compelled  to  accept  the  Imperial 
Crown.  "  Russia  cannot  be  without  a  Tsar,"  he 
said.'' 

His  conversation  with  Rostovtsev  and  Die- 
bitsh's  report  made  a  profound  impression  upon 
Nicholas.     New  letters  had  in  the  meantime  arrived 

1  Russian  Archives^  ibid.     See  also  Shilder,  Emperor  Nicholas 
/,  St.  Petersburg,  1903,  i,  p.  259. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  260, 


:  :•..: 


»  »      » 


•     »  "   » 


«   '•   » 


».".',    ' 


11  '      )    3 


»      B  >  ' 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  81 

from  his  brother  which  still  neither  definitely 
declared  his  abdication  nor  his  willingness  to 
accept  the  Crown ;  therefore  Nicholas  decided  to 
take  a  decisive  step.  This  was  December  12th ;  he 
wrote  to  Diebitsh  :  "  The  day  after  to-morrow  I 
shall  either  be  Tsar — or  dead."  On  December  12th, 
also,  Speransky  prepared  a  manifesto  announcing 
the  ascension  of  Nicholas  to  the  Russian  throne, 
and  on  the  13th,  the  next  day,  Nicholas  signed 
the  manifesto  and  settled  on  the  14th  as  the  day 
for  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance.  lie  instructed 
General  Voinov  to  convene  all  the  generals  of  the 
corps  de  garde  on  the  morrow  at  the  Winter  Palace, 
where  he  intended  personally  to  announce  the 
abdication  of  his  brother,  so  as  to  avoid  any  pre- 
text for  trouble.  He  then  summoned  Count 
Nesselrode  and  informed  him  that  the  interregnum 
was  at  an  end.^ 

But  the  inhabitants  of  the  capital  were  not  with- 
out misgivings  ;  there  was  something  in  the  air. 
People  meeting  in  the  streets  greeted  each  other 
with  :  "  What  about  to-morrow  ?  "  There  was 
something  indefinite  and  ominous  in  the  political 
situation,  and  many  guessed,  apart  from  those 
who  knew,  that  the  14th  would  not  pass  with- 
out some  trouble  at  least.  The  members  of  the 
Northern  League  were  busy ;  they  had  convened 
several  meetings  and  had  decided  to  avail  them- 
selves of  the  day  fixed  for  the  taking  of  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  realise  some  of  the  aims  of  the 
society. 

The  death  of  Alexander  had  found  the  League 
quite  unprepared.  Therefore,  being  unable  them- 
selves to  initiate  anv  revolution,  the  members  of 

1  Shilder,  I.e.,  p.  263. 
6 


82  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  Northern  League  had  decided  to  hold  them- 
selves ready  to  help  the  Southerners — these  could 
arrange  an  insurrection.  Then  suddenly  the  news 
of  Constantine's  abdication  entirely  changed  the 
aspect  of  affairs.  The  authorities  knew  that  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  make  the  soldiers  and 
people  understand  that  Const antine  really  had 
abdicated,  and  both  society  and  the  guards  were 
definitely  hostile  to  Nicholas.  Jakubovitsh  told 
Miloradovitsh  that  he  would  not  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  any  one  until  Constantine  came  to 
the  capital  and  publicly  declared  his  intention. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  commonly  said  that 
Nicholas  was  secretly  urging  Constantine  to  abdi- 
cate, and — they  disliked  him. 

Jakubovitsh  was  not  the  only  one  to  refuse  to 
take  the  oath  of  allegiance.  The  people  felt  so 
sure  of  a  reign  of  tyranny  under  Nicholas  that 
they  even  regretted  the  reactionary  period  under 
Alexander.  To  a  certain  extent,  as  the  rumours 
of  Constantine's  abdication  grew  stronger,  so  the 
attitude  of  the  members  of  the  Northern  League 
changed.  "Now  or  never,"  said  Ryleev ;  and  it 
was  decided  to  act  at  once.  But  how  they  were 
to  act  and  what  steps  they  should  take  if  Con- 
stantine really  did  abdicate  and  Nicholas  ascend 
the  throne,  they  did  not  quite  know.  The  house 
of  Ryleev  became  the  principal  meeting  place ; 
there  they  discussed,  debated,  declaimed  passion- 
ately, but  no  one  really  knew  the  extent  either  of 
the  society's  resources  or  power. 

"  The  plans  and  measures  to  be  taken  for  the 
insurrection,"  writes  Baron  Rosen,  one  of  the 
conspirators,  "  were  indefinite  and  indefinable  ;  in 
reply  to  my  observations   Prince   Obolenski  and 


THE   DECEMBRISTS  83 

Boulatov  replied  mockingly :  "  But  you  cannot 
have  a  dress  rehearsal  of  the  insurrection."  - 

All  were  enthusiastic,  all  were  ready  to  act  and 
nearly  all  were  sure  of  success.  "  Ryleev  alone," 
writes  Baron  Rosen,  "  was  doubtful  of  success, 
but,"  he  added,  "  we  must  begin  ;  the  beginning 
and  the  example  will  be  useful  to  others  !  "  "I 
feel  sure  that  we  shall  fail,"  said  Ryleev,  "  but  the 
insurrection  is  necessary.  The  tactics  of  a  revo- 
lutionary consist  of  two  words  :  Cause  trouble ; 
therefore,  even  if  we  fail,  our  very  failure  will  be  a 
lesson  to  others." 

For  some  time  the  members  debated  whether 
their  insurrection  against  Nicholas  should  be  con- 
ducted on  the  lines  of  the  palace  revolutions  which 
had  taken  place  in  Russia  during  the  preceding 
century — under  cover  of  the  night — or  in  open, 
broad  daylight.  It  was  linally  decided  to  adopt 
the  new  method,  one  hitherto  unknown  in  Russian 
history :  rebellion  in  public,  in  the  presence  of 
the  people;  on  their  sympathy,  at  least,  they 
felt  sure  they  could  rely.  Prince  Troubetskoy, 
Colonel  of  the  Freobrazhenski  regiment,  was  elected 
leader  of  the  revolution.  They  understood  that 
several  regiments  were  ready  to  refuse  to  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Nicholas.  It  was  also 
*  agreed  that  if  Constantine  came  to  St.  Petersburg, 
the  rebellion  would  be  put  aside  for  the  present, 
but  otherwise  they  were  to  insist  upon  a  con- 
stitution. 

Yet  all  these  ideas  were  vague,  and  no  definite 
plan  of  action  could  be  arrived  at.  They  were  all 
dreamers  and  theoreticians  ;  Ryleev  was  a  poet, 
and    the    League    badly    lacked    a    resolute    and 

1  Rosen,  Zapiaki,  Leipzig,  1870,  p.  86. 


84  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

strategic  leader,  prepared  to  meet  any  emergency. 
They  did  not  even  know  certainly  how  many  regi- 
ments would  act  with  them  and  refuse  to  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance,  or  how  many  men  would  be 
on  their  side.  In  a  word,  the  coming  day  was  a 
riddle  to  all  those  who  had  decided  to  play  a  pro- 
minent and  historic  part  in  it. 

Their  last  meeting  took  place  on  the  eve  of  the 
14th  at  Ryleev's  house. 

Among  Troubetskoy's  papers  there  was  found, 
later,  a  plan  of  a  manifesto  which,  in  case  of  their 
success,  was  to  have  been  promulgated  by  the 
Senate.  It  contained  the  following :  (1)  Aboli- 
tion of  the  former  Government.  (2)  The  estab- 
lishment of  a  Provisional  Government  until  a 
Constituent  Assembly,  elected  by  the  people, 
should  decide  upon  a  new  form  of  government. 
(3)  The  freedom  of  the  press  and  the  abolition  of 
the  censorship.  (4)  Freedom  of  conscience  and 
equality  of  all  creeds.  (5)  The  abolition  of  serf- 
dom. (6)  The  equality  of  all  classes  of  society 
before  the  law  and  the  abolition  of  courts -martial 
as  well  as  of  all  kinds  of  legal  commissions.  All 
the  pending  actions  to  be  transferred  to  the  civil 
tribunals.  (7)  The  right  of  every  subject  to  exercise 
any  profession  he  chose  without  hindrance  and 
consideration  of  class.  (8)  The  abolition  of  taxes 
according  to  souls.  (9)  The  abolition  of  all 
monopolies.  (10)  The  abolition  of  military  colonies 
and  the  prevailing  mode  of  recruiting  soldiers  to 
be  abolished.  (11)  Diminution  of  the  term  of 
military  service  for  the  soldiers.  A  definite  term 
of  military  service  was  to  be  fixed  and  obligatory 
service  introduced  for  all  classes  of  society.  (12) 
The  liberation  of  all  soldiers  who  had  been  in  the 


THE  DECEMBRISTS  85 

army  for  fifteen  years.  (13)  The  introduction  of 
communal,  district,  government  and  provincial 
administrations.  (14)  Publicity  in  judicial  affairs. 
(15)  The  introduction  of  juries  in  criminal  and 
civil  cases. 


CHAPTER    V 

DECEMBER   THE    14TH 

December  the  14th,  that  fatal  day,  at  last  arrived. 
Nicholas  rose  early  and  said  to  his  Adjutant- 
General  Benkendorli  :  "  To-night  we  shall  per- 
haps be  in  another  world,  but  at  least  we  shall 
have  died  in  the  accomplishment  of  our  duty." 
Arrayed  in  the  uniform  of  the  Ismailov  regiment, 
the  new  Tsar  entered  the  room  where  all  the 
generals  and  colonels  commanding  the  guard  corps 
were  assembled,  and  verbally  explained  to  them 
that  since  his  brother  Constantino,  the  rightful  heir, 
had  abdicated,  he,  Nicholas,  as  the  next  in  line 
and  the  heir-apparent,  was  compelled  to  accept 
the  crown  and  take  upon  his  shoulders  *'  the  bur- 
den of  Tsardom."  He  then  read  to  the  assembled 
officers  the  manifesto  of  Alexander  I  and  the 
instructions  of  the  late  Emperor.  All  present 
then  declared  themselves  satisfied,  and  that  everv- 
thing  was  quite  legal  and  iri  perfect  order.  Nicholas 
then  solemnly  declared  :  "  After  this,  you  are 
responsible  for  the  peace  of  the  capital ;  your  heads 
depend  upon  it.  As  for  myself,  even  if  I  am  Tsar 
but  for  one  hour,  I  shall  show  myself  worthy  of 
the  Crown." 

It  is  evident  that  Nicholas  knew  more  of  the 
workings  of  the  Secret  Society  than  Rostovtsev  had 

86 


DECEMBER    THE    14TH  87 

told  him.  He  had  decided  to  act  firmly  and  to 
frustrate  all  possible  plans  of  the  conspirators. 
The  generals  and  colonels  were  dismissed  with 
instructions  to  make  the  army  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  new  ruler,  but  the  regiments 
were  to  be  sworn  in  separately,  and  in  turn. 

Whilst  Nicholas  and  his  Government  were  thus 
taking  active  steps  to  force  the  army  and  the 
greater  institutions  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
a  number  of  the  conspirators  were  preparing  for 
insurrection.  Some  of  the  revolutionaries  had 
passed  a  sleepless  night.  To-morrow  the  great 
question,  "To  be  or  not  to  be,"  was  to  be  an- 
swered. They  held  a  short  meeting  at  seven  o'clock 
in  the  morning  and  then  dispersed.  Some  hesi- 
tated, and  suggested  postponing  the  insurrection 
to  another  and  better  opportunity,  but  others 
strenuously  opposed  this,  especially  the  brothers 
Bestyoushev  and  Shtshepkin-Rostovski.  They  were 
the  first  to  give  the  signal  of  insurrection.  Best- 
youshev, who  commanded  a  battalion,  addressed 
his  men  and  told  them  that  Constantine  had  been 
detained  on  his  way  to  the  capital,  and  that  steps 
were  being  taken  to  make  the  guards  recognise 
Nicholas,  who  had  no  right  to  the  throne,  as  Tsar. 
The  men  then  shouted  :  "  We  don't  want  Nicholas. 
Hurrah  for  Constantine  ! "  Bestyoushev  continued 
his  work  among  the  other  companies,  and  soon  the 
entire  regiment  was  ripe  for  rebellion. 

The  Generals  Shenshin  and  Frederics,  as  well  as 
Colonel  Khvoshtshinski,  made  an  effort  to  calm 
the  soldiers,  but  the  enraged  Shtshepkin-Rostovski 
felled  the  first  two  ;  the  colonel  managed  to  escape. 
The  regiment  was  then  led  by  the  two  agitators, 
who    were   soon  joined  by  Jakubovitsh,   towards 


88  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  Senatorial  Square.  The  square  was  empty. 
Bestyoushev  and  Shtshepkin  drew  their  men  up  in 
a  Une  and  waited.  Ryleev  had  come  to  the  square 
shortly  after  seven  in  the  morning,  and  finding  it 
empty  had  started  to  go  to  the  Ismailov  regiment ; 
but  on  the  way  he  had  met  another  conspirator, 
who  informed  him  that  his  ellorts  in  that  direction 
would  be  useless  ;  thereupon  Ryleev  had  returned 
to  the  square,  but  soon  after  disappeared  and  was 
not  seen  again  that  day.  A  little  later  Prince 
Obolenski  and  his  chasseurs  arrived. 

Suddenly,  Miloradovitsh,  the  Governor-General 
of  the  capital,  galloped  up  on  horseback  ;  he  ad- 
dressed the  soldiers,  calling  upon  them  to  take 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  Nicholas.  He  told  them 
that  he,  too,  had  been  in  favour  of  Constantine, 
but  that  the  latter  had  abdicated  ;  and  he  asked 
them  to  believe  that  he  himself  had  read  the  act 
of  abdication.  Obolenski  saw  what  a  dangerous 
effect  such  a  speech  might  have,  and  demanded 
that  the  Count  should  retire,  but  Miloradovitsh 
paid  no  attention  to  him,  whereupon  Obolenski 
drew  his  sword  and  attacked  the  Count,  wounding 
him  slightly.  At  that  moment  Kakhovski  fired  his 
pistol  at  the  Count,  who  died  very  shortly  after- 
wards from  the  effects  of  the  shot.  It  was  Prince 
Golitsyn  w^ho  took  the  news  of  Miloradovitsh' s 
fate  to  Nicholas. 

The  square  now  resounded  with  shouts  of  "  Long 
live  Constantine  !  "  But  the  Tsar  had  by  now  been 
informed  that  some  of  the  regiments  had  taken 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  him  ;  the  first  to  come 
to  his  aid  was  the  Horse  Guards,  commanded  by 
General  Orlov.  These  at  once  proceeded  to  the 
square   and   attacked   the   rebellious   troops,    but 


DECEMBER    THE   14TH  89 

the  attack  failed,  since  the  men  of  the  Horse 
Guards  fired  unwillingly  on  their  comrades ;  there- 
fore Orlov  drew  his  regiment  up  to  face  the  rebels, 
but  remained  passive.  The  square  gradually  filled 
up  with  new  regiments,  some  of  whom  joined  the 
rebels. 

Then,  suddenly,  the  Emperor  appeared,  sur- 
rounded by  a  battalion  of  the  Preobrazhenski 
guards,  but  he  did  not  dare  to  come  within  reach 
of  the  rebellious  troops  ;  he  knew  that  if  he  did 
he  would  meet  the  same  fate  as  Miloradovitsh. 
Kakhovski  said  afterwards  that  he  had  been  ready 
to  shoot  the  Tsar  also.  For  a  moment  the  posi- 
tion was  critical  for  Nicholas.  Seven  companies 
of  the  Grenadier  Regiment,  under  the  leadership 
of  Panov,  went  to  the  Winter  Palace  with  the 
intention  of  taking  forcible  possession  of  it,  and, 
in  case  of  serious  opposition,  of  assassinating  the 
entire  Imperial  family.  The  dynasty  which  was 
to  rule  over  Russia  for  nearly  another  century  was 
saved  by  a  sapper  regiment  faithful  to  the  Tsar  ; 
they  arrived  but  a  few  moments  before  the  revo- 
lutionaries and  took  up  their  position  in  front  of 
the  palace.  ''  Had  this  sapper  regiment,"  writes 
Nicholas  in  his  Reminiscences,  "  arrived  but  a 
few  minutes  later,  the  Palace  would  have  been 
occupied  by  the  revolutionaries  and  the  Imperial 
family  would  have  been  at  the  mercy  of  the 
rebels."  ' 

In  the  meantime,  faithful  troops  were  being 
despatched  to  the  square,  and  the  mutineers  were 
gradually  surrounded  by  various  detachments  and 
regiments  who  had  hastened  to  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance.     However,   even  then  the  insurrection 

1  Schilder,  I.e.,  p.  287. 


90  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

would  have  succeeded  had  the  insurgents  but 
taken  some  initiative.  The  faithful  regiments 
arrived  but  very  slowly,  and  not  a  few  were  more 
than  half  willing  to  join  the  insurgents  if  the  latter 
had  but  made  some  decisive  move.  The  crowd, 
too,  which  by  now  filled  the  square,  was  very 
evidently  in  sympathy  with  the  insurgents.  Three 
regiments  supposedly  faithful  to  Nicholas,  the 
Semionovski,  Pavlovski  and  Preobrazhenski,  sent 
word  to  the  insurgents  that  if  a  signal  for  initiative 
were  given  they  would  join  them,  but  unfortunately 
the  insurgents  remained  inactive.  They  stood 
there  motionless,  not  knowing  what  they  were 
there  for  or  what  they  were  going  to  do.  They 
had  no  one  to  lead  them  or  to  give  instructions. 

Troubetskoy,  who  had  been  appointed  chief  and 
leader  of  the  Revolution,  was  invisible.  He  wan- 
dered over  the  town,  avoiding  the  square  where 
the  whole  city  turbulently  awaited  the  denouement 
of  the  great  drama.  He,  the  supposed  leader,  was 
absent  at  the  crucial  moment  ;  he  did  not  believe 
in  the  success  of  their  effort,  and,  unfortunately, 
his  pessimism  made  him  commit  an  act  of  treachery 
towards  his  fellow  conspirators.  Schilder  relates 
that  later,  when  Troubetskoy  was  a  prisoner  in 
the  fortress  of  Peter  and  Paul,  Adjutant  Levashev 
found  an  opportunity  of  accusing  him  of  having 
done  a  great  deal  of  harm  to  Russia  with  his  badly 
planned  insurrection.  "  Ah,  mon  Prince,  vous 
avez  fait  bien  du  mal  a  la  Russie  ;  vous  I'avez 
reculee  de  cinquante  ans."  What  Schilder  means 
of  course,  is  that  the  very  idea  of  getting  up  an 
insurrection  that  was  bound  to  be  a  failure  natur- 
ally resulted  in  throwing  Nicholas  into  the  arms 
of   reaction.     But,    I    venture    to   think,   that    if 


DECEMBER   THE   14TH  91 

Troubetskoy  was  guilty  it  was  not  because  of  his 
participation  in  the  secret  conspiracy,  but  because 
of  his  treacherous  and  cowardly  behaviour  at  the 
last  moment — the  decisive  moment. 

Another  member  of  the  Secret  Societv  who  was 
a  true  traitor  was  General  Shipov,  an  intimate 
friend  of  Colonel  Festel.  He  not  only  betrayed 
his  comrades  at  the  critical  moment  and  went 
over  to  the  Tsar,  but  he  also  did  his  best  to  per- 
suade the  other  officers  of  his  brigade  to  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  Nicholas.  Jakubovitsh,  too, 
who  had  so  frequently  declared  his  intention  of 
shooting  the  Tsar,  declared  he  had  a  headache,  and 
disappeared.  He  had  several  opportunities  of 
firing  his  loaded  pistol  at  the  Tsar  as  he  had  so 
often  threatened  to  do,  but  he  lacked  the  courage. 
Thus  the  rebels  in  the  square  had  no  leader  with 
the  necessary  courage  and  authority  to  dispose 
of  the  armed  force  at  his  disposal.  There  the  poor 
mutineers  stood,  shouting  continuously :  "Hurrah, 
Constantino  !  " 

At  length  the  old  Metropolitan,  Seraphim,  ap- 
proached the  mutineers  and  made  an  effort  to 
bring  them  to  reason.  "  Warriors ! "  he  cried, 
"  calm  yourselves.  You  are  acting  against  God, 
the  Church  and  the  country.  Constantine  Pavlo- 
vitsh  has  formallv  abdicated  and  renounced  his 
right  to  the  Russian  Crown  and  has  himself  taken 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  his  brother  Nicholas,  who 
thus  legally  ascends  the  throne.  The  Senate,  the 
Synod  and  the  people  have  followed  his  example. 
You  alone  have  dared  to  rebel.  God  is  mv  wit- 
ness  that  I  am  telling  vou  the  truth  and,  as  head 
of  the  Holy  Church,  I  implore  you  to  swear  fealty 
to  our  Tsar." 


92  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

But  the  insurgents  replied  :  "  It  is  not  true. 
Where  is  Constantine  ?  " 

''  In  Warsaw,"  replied  the  prelate. 

*'  No,"  insisted  the  insurgents,  "he  is  not  in 
Warsaw  ;  he  is  a  prisoner  in  chains  ;  bring  him 
hither.  Hurrah,  Constantine !  What  sort  of 
Metropolitan  are  you  to  have  taken  your  oath 
of  allegiance  to  two  Emperors  in  the  course  of  a 
single  fortnight  ?  You  are  a  traitor,  a  deserter, 
that's  what  you  are.  Go  to  your  Church  and 
send  us  Michael  Pavlovitsh ;  we  wish  to  speak  to 
him." 

Michael  Pavlovitsh,  accompanied  by  General 
Voiiiov,  approached  the  mutineers,  but  Kuechel- 
becker  pointed  his  pistol  at  the  prince  and  fired 
at  the  general.  After  these  repeated  failures  to 
bring  the  insurgents  to  reason.  General  Vassilt- 
shikov  turned  to  Nicholas  and  said  :  "  Sire,  il  n'y 
a  pas  un  moment  a  perdre,  on  n'y  pent  rien  main- 
tenant  ;  il  faut  de  la  mitraille."  Nicholas  pre- 
tended to  feel  horrified  at  the  very  idea  of  such  a 
step,  though  he  admitted  its  necessity.  I  frankly 
confess  that  to  me,  judged  in  the  light  of  his  be- 
haviour to  his  subjects  during  his  reign,  his  asser- 
tion was  rank  hypocrisy.  ''  Vous  voulez  que  je 
verse  le  sang  de  mes  sujets  le  premier  jour  de 
mon  r^gne,"  he  retorted,  to  which  Vassiltshikov 
replied  :    "  Pour  sauver  votre  empire."  ^ 

The  Tsar  then  sent  General  Soukhozanet  with 
an  ultimatum.  The  general  called  upon  the  revo- 
lutionaries to  lay  down  their  arms  or  the  mitrail- 
leuse w^ould  spit  fire.  "  Go  back,"  they  cried  in 
reply,  "  and  send  some  one  more  honest."  Souk- 
hozanet  informed  the  Tsar  that   the  rebels  had 

1  Schilder,  p.  290. 


DECEMBER  THE   14TH  93 

refused  to  obey,  and  the  signal  for  the  first  salvo 
was  given.  Sure  now  that  he  had  sufficient  armed 
forces  on  his  side,  the  ruler  of  Russia,  the  "  little 
father,"  gave  the  brief  command  to  fire  upon  his 
children  :    "  For  God  and  the  Tsar,  forward." 

The  first  cannon-shot  hit  the  edifice  of  the 
Senate  and  killed  several  people  sitting  on  the 
roof.  The  insurgents  replied  with  the  cry : 
"  Hurrah,  Constantine  !  "  and  attempted  to  at- 
tack the  artillery  with  their  bayonets,  but  the 
salvos  now  followed  in  quick  succession.  It  was 
murderous  ;  blood  flowed  in  abundance  !  Nicholas 
had  begun  to  rule  over  Russia  !  Not  only  many 
of  the  mutineers  who  had  foregathered  and  vaguely 
clamoured  for  a  constitution,  a  representative 
government,  abolition  of  serfdom  and  other 
luxuries,  but  also  thousands  of  the  populace, 
innocent  victims  who  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
demands  of  the  Decembrists,  with  their  dead 
bodies  paved  the  way  to  the  throne  for  Nicholas 
Romanov.  The  snow  on  the  Isaac  Square  was 
crimson,  and  the  blood  of  the  victims  cried  to 
Heaven  for  vengeance  ;  but  it  was  nearly  a  century 
before  Heaven  answered  that  crv,  and  thousands 
upon  thousands  were  still  to  suffer  under  the  yoke 
of  autocracv  before  its  doom  would  be  sealed. 

The  insurgents  could  do  nothing  against  the 
murderous  fire  of  the  mitrailleuses,  and  they  fled 
in  confusion  out  on  the  ice-bound  Neva.  Best- 
youshev  made  an  effort  to  organise  the  remaining 
men  for  an  attack  upon  the  fortress  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  but  the  mitrailleuses  again  spat  fire  upon 
them.  Still  the  rebels  tried  to  reorganise  them- 
selves for  a  definite  attack,  when  suddenly  the  cry 
arose  :    ''  We  are  drowning  !  "     The  cannon  had 


94  THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

burst  the  ice  and  the  unhappy  fugitives  were 
drowned  in  the  river.  Thus  Tsar  Nicholas  punished 
the  men  who  had  dared  to  dream  of  Hberty  ;  those 
who  had  escaped  the  fire  of  his  cannon  found  an 
early  grave  in  the  waters  of  the  Neva.  Autocracy 
gained  the  day.  It  had  made  itself  felt,  and  had 
proclaimed  its  power  both  by  fire  and  sword  ;  the 
hope  of  opposition  was  entirely  crushed. 

But  the  work  of  destruction  continued,  although 
peace  had  been  established  !  How  many  victims 
had  been  sacrificed  to  save  the  throne  for  a  scion  of 
the  house  of  Romanov  could  never  be  ascertained. 
They  were  not  only  military  men,  but  included 
also  thousands  of  the  civil  population.  When 
the  first  salvo  was  fired,  a  panic  naturally  arose 
among  the  lookers-on,  and  they  rushed  towards  the 
houses ;  but  as  all  the  gates  in  the  square  were 
closed,  and  remained  closed  despite  the  entreaties 
of  the  frightened  people,  many  were  crushed  to 
death.  Nicholas  ordered  that  the  victims  should 
be  removed  late  at  night,  for  autocracy  always 
hates  to  see  the  blood  which  is  shed  in  its  service 
and  for  its  benefit. 

The  dead  were  removed  in  a  most  inhuman 
manner.  Holes  were  cut  in  the  ice-bound  Neva, 
and  the  victims,  manv  of  whom  were  still  alive 
though  grievously  wounded  and  unable  to  escape, 
were  thrown  in.  And  many  of  those  who  did 
escape  were  afraid  to  go  to  a  doctor  to  have  their 
wounds  dressed,  and  so  died  of  their  effects.  Dur- 
ing that  winter  it  was  not  at  all  unusual  for  the 
workmen  who  were  busy  cutting  blocks  of  ice 
from  the  Neva  to  come  across  a  frozen  arm  or 
a  leg,  or  even  a  whole  body.  With  the  approach 
of  spring  the  ice  melted  and  the  bodies  of  the 


DECEMBER   THE   14TH  95 


I 


Decembrists,  the  pioneers  of  Russian  freedom, 
were  carried  by  the  Neva  to  the  Baltic  Sea 
where,  a  century  later,  they  were  to  be  joined  by 
the  victims  of  the  submarines  of  another  autocrat 
— a  German  this  time.  And  yet  there  are  still 
men,  even  in  our  age,  who  have  the  heart  to  cry  : 
''  Vive  I'Empereur  !  " 

The  official  reports  naturally  minimise  the  num- 
ber of  victims  and  pretend  that  only  about  seventy 
or  eighty  people  lost  their  lives  in  the  Isaac 
Square.  This  ridiculous  statement  is  flatly  denied 
by  several  of  the  Decembrists,  notably  Bestyou- 
shev  and  Stengel,  in  their  Memoirs. 

About  a  fortnight  after  these  events  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Southern  League  made  an  attempt  to 
organise  a  revolution,  but  they  were  at  once  sup- 
pressed. Some  of  the  leaders  then  committed 
suicide,  while  others  were  arrested  and  sent  to  the 
capital.  Then  the  Tsar  began  the  work  of  re- 
venge. During  the  night  of  December  14th-15th, 
Nicholas  busied  himself  questioning  the  first 
captive  members  of  the  Secret  Society.  He  had 
firmly  made  up  his  mind  to  show  no  mercy  to  his 
powerless  foes.  Prisoners  were  brought  to  him 
from  all  parts  of  the  country,  a  new  batch  every 
day  ;  the  Tsar  seemed  to  derive  great  pleasure 
from  superintending  the  whole  procedure ;  he 
was  at  once  public  prosecutor,  examining  magis- 
trate, judge  and  jury.  He  was  quite  in  his  element. 
Nicholas  was  a  born  detective  and  spy  ;  he  was 
suspicious  by  nature  and  always  on  the  look  out 
for  some  criminal  whom  he  could  hand  over  to  the 
authorities  or  the  police.  These  characteristics 
manifested  themselves  at  their  height,  being  given 

1   Schilder,  I.e.,  p.  516.     Xote  328. 


96  THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

ample  opportunity  and  scope,  during  the  first  few 
months  of  his  reign.  In  those  days  Russia  had 
no  Tsar,  no  ruler.  Her  Tsar  was  not  a  ruler  but 
a  detective,  an  examining  magistrate  and  a  gaoler. 
He  delighted  in  torturing  the  accused  with  his 
questions  and  making  them  confess  to  crimes 
they  had  never  committed  and  intentions  they 
had  never  dreamed  of.  It  may  be  said  that  in 
this  art  of  compelling  the  criminal  to  confess, 
this  Imperial  Grand  Inquisitor  surpassed  all  his 
salaried  officials.^  Practically  all  the  prisoners 
were  brought  to  the  Imperial  Palace,  where  they 
were  either  questioned  personally  by  the  Tsar  him- 
self or,  occasionally,  by  his  adjutant,  when  the 
Emperor  would  remain  in  an  adjoining  room  where 
he  could  hear  every  word  spoken. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  Nicholas  showed  not 
only  energy  and  liking  for  this  detective  w^ork, 
but  also  a  considerable  amount  of  psychological 
insight.  He  endeavoured  to  form  a  clear  idea 
of  the  character,  the  personality  and  the  weakness 
of  each  prisoner,  and  then  employed  tactics  to 
suit  them.  Sometimes  he  posed  as  the  benevolent 
ruler  anxious  to  know  the  requirements  of  the 
Empire  and  ready  to  grant  reforms  ;  sometimes 
he  made  these  dreamers  believe  that  he  was  a 
martyr  and  not  to  be  envied.  He  often  went  so  far 
as  to  kiss  the  accused  and  call  them  his  friends, 
while  he  urged  them  to  tell  him  everything,  the 
whole  truth,  and  so  help  him  to  make  Russia  happy. 
He  knew  how  to  assume  such  an  air  of  absolute 
sincerity  that  some  of  those  unfortunate  dreamers 
believed  him.  Knaves  always  find  dreamers  and 
enthusiasts  easy  prey,  which  explains  why  it  is  so 

^  Cf.  Pokrovski,  History  of  Russia,  vol.  i,  p.  130. 


CD 

hi 
O 

K 
o 


P5 

03 

H 


CD 


DECEMBER  THE   14TH  97 

often  the  h}^ocrite  who  becomes  the  leader  of 
great  ideahstic  movements,  thus  ruinmg  them  and 
driving  the  honest  people  away.  History  gives 
us  many  examples  of  this. 

What  the  Tsar  desired  to  know,  of  course,  was 
merely  the  strength  of  the  movement  and  its 
possible  danger  to  himself  and  his  d\Tiasty.  He 
desired  to  come  out  victorious  in  this  struggle  of 
anix)cracy  with  incipient  revolution  ;  to  crush  it 
in  the  bud  ;  to  tear  it  out  root  and  branch  from 
Russian  soil  and  the  Russian  soul.  Anv  means 
that  would  enable  him  to  do  this  were  agreeable 
to  him.  His  Imperial  dignity,  which  later  he 
held  so  proudly,  did  not  for  the  moment  deter  him 
from  stooping  to  the  pettiest,  most  contemptible, 
and  hypocritical  methods  to  obtain  what  he 
wished.  He  cajoled,  flattered,  tlireatened,  in- 
sulted, kissed,  boxed  the  ears,  whined  and  com- 
plained in  turn  according  to  the  psychology  of 
the  prisoner  he  had  before .  liim.  Many  of  the 
conspirators  fell  into  the  snare.  Some  hoped  that 
a  complete  confession  of  their  aims  would  con- 
vince the  Tsar  of  the  necessitv  for  reforms,  whilst 
others  trusted  in  his  clemencv  ;  others  asjain  were 
just  frightened.  Ryleev,  Kakhovski,  Troubetskoy, 
Pestel  and  several  others  made  a  complete  con- 
fession. 

Some  of  the  conspirators  had  families  dependent 
upon  them,  so  Nicholas  took  charge  of  these  at 
once.  Noblesse  oblige  !  Many  of  the  revolutionaries 
actually  believed  that  revenge  had  no  place  in  the 
noble  Imperial  heart  of  Nicholas  Romanov.  He 
only  wished  to  know  what  Russia  required,  and 
therefore,  what  better  ser^'ice  could  thev  render 
their  beloved  country  than  to  acquaint  the  man 

7 


98  THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

presiding  over  her  destinies  with  her  needs,  her 
wants,  her  sufferings  and  her  aspirations  ?  They 
laid  bare  their  hearts,  they  confessed  their  sins, 
hoping  for  absohition  and  consolation.  Nicholas 
had  sent  2,000  roubles  to  Ryleev's  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  the  tender  and  loving  husband  and 
father  thrilled  with  gratitude  towards  the  Imperial 
benefactor.  From  his  prison  cell  Ryleev  wrote 
to  his  wife  and  advised  her  to  pray  for  the  Emperor 
and  the  entire  Romanov  family.  "  As  for  my- 
self," added  this  whilom  conspirator,  "  whatever 
happens  I  shall  live  and  die  for  my  Tsar  and  my 
country." 

Some  of  the  accused  were  more  clear-sighted, 
and  obstinately  refused  to  betray  the  secrets  of 
their  society.  Such  were  Lunin  and  Yakushkin. 
Troubetskoy's  behaviour  on  the  fatal  day  was  well 
known  to  Nicholas  ;  he  knew  that  the  appointed 
dictator  had  been  in  hiding  the  whole  day,  afraid 
to  meet  his  fellow  conspirators.  He  therefore 
adopted  a  manner  calculated  to  frighten  the  prince 
as  well  as  to  wound  his  pride.  Pointing  at  his 
prisoner's  head,  the  Tsar  exclaimed :  "  What 
folly  lodged  itself  in  this  head  that  you^  with  your 
name  and  family,  could  have  got  mixed  up  in  such 
an  affair  !  You,  a  Colonel  of  the  Guards,  a  Prince  ! 
Are  you  not  ashamed  to  be  found  among  such 
rabble  ?  Ah,  but  your  fate  shall  be  a  terrible 
one  !  "  Troubetskoy  fell  on  his  knees  and  begged 
for  mercy,  and  then  said  whatever  the  Tsar  wanted 
him  to  say. 

This  Imperial  actor  must  really  have  possessed 
talent  that  would  be  the  envy  of  many  a  star  of 
the  stage !  To  the  impressionable  and  naive 
prisoner  he  appeared,  not  the  despot  and  tyrant, 


DECEMBER  THE  14TH  99 

but  the  most  benevolent  of  monarchs  and  the 
most  humane  of  men.  They  sang  his  praises  in 
their  letters  to  their  families. 

Of  the  two  obstinate  prisoners,  Lunin  and 
Yakushkin,  the  latter' s  version  of  the  investiga- 
tion is  exceedingly  interesting.  He  was  not 
arrested  until  January  10th.  He  had  been  ex- 
pecting arrest,  so  was  not  surprised  when  the 
superintendent  of  police  suddenly  appeared  and 
took  him  to  the  Winter  Palace.  That  first  night 
he  passed  in  a  room  on  the  ground  floor  of  the 
Palace,  with  soldiers  carrying  drawn  swords  on 
guard  at  the  door  and  window.  Towards  the 
evening  of  the  next  day  he  was  taken  to  another 
department  and  interviewed  by  General  Levashev. 
The  prisoner  was  invited  to  sit  down,  and  asked 
whether  he  belonged  to  the  Secret  Society,  to 
which  Yakushkin  answered  in  the  affirmative. 

"  And  what  do  you  know  of  the  activity  of  the 
Secret  Society  ?  "    queried  Levashev. 

Yakushkin  shrugged  his  shoulders.  "  I  don't 
know  anything  at  all  about  the  Secret  Society," 
was  his  curt  reply. 

Levashev  smiled  ironically.  "  My  dear  sir,'*  he 
said,  '*  do  you  imagine  we  are  so  ignorant  as  all 
that  ?  The  events  of  December  14th  were  prema- 
ture, no  doubt,  but  in  1818  it  had  also  been  your 
intention  to  organise  a  revolution  against  the 
late  Tsar.  I  can  even  give  the  details  of  that  in- 
tended insurrection.  Lots  were  drawn  by  all 
those  who  were  present  at  that  secret  gathering 
to  determine  who  should  kill  the  Tsar — and  vou 
drew  the  winning  piece." 

"  That  is  not  quite  correct,  your  Excellency," 
replied  Yakushkin ;   "I  offered  myself  voluntarily, 


*» 


100         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and    categorically    refused    to    allow    any    of   my 
companions  to  participate  in  the  honour." 

Levashev  wrote  down  Yakushkin's  confession. 
"  Will  you  now  very  kindly,"  he  continued,  ''  give 
me  the  names  of  all  the  gentlemen  who  were  pre- 
sent at  that  secret  gathering  ?  " 

"  That  is  quite  impossible,  your  Excellency,** 
replied  the  prisoner.  "  When  I  became  a  member 
of  the  Secret  Society  I  gave  my  word  of  honour 
never  to  betray  my  friends." 

*'  Then  we  shall  have  to  compel  you  to  speak, 
replied  the  General.  "It  is  my  painful  duty,  my 
dear  sir,  to  remind  you  that  torture  is  still  in  exis- 
tence in  Russia."  ^ 

"  I  am,  of  course,  greatly  obliged  to  you.  Ex- 
cellency, for  the  warning,  but  I  confess  that  I  now 
feel  it  more  than  ever  my  duty  not  to  speak  and 
betray  my  friends." 

Levashev  tried  a  different  policy.  "  Look  here," 
he  said,  "  I  am  not  speaking  to  you  as  your  judge 
but  as  your  equal,  and  I  fail  to  understand  your 
loyalty  to  people  who  have  not  hesitated  to  betray 
you." 

"  I  am  not  here  to  judge  of  the  conduct  of  my 
companions,"  coolly  replied  Yakushkin.  "  I  only 
know  that  in  spite  of  everything,  it  is  my  duty  to 
keep  the  promise  I  gave,  even  if  others  may  have 
forgotten  it." 

"  But  all  your  friends  have  admitted  that  the 
aim  of  the  Secret  Society  was  to  establish  a  new 
government  in  place  of  autocracy." 

"  That  is  quite  possible,"  was  the  reply. 

Torture  was  abolished  by  Nicholas  in  1827,  but  criminals 
were  nevertheless  tortured  in  Moscow  in  1834  and  at  Kostroma 
in  1847. 


DECEMBER   TKF^.  14TH  101 

"Then  what  do  you  know,  ab.out. Iih6  constitU'^ 
tion  with  which  the  country  was  to  have  been 
endowed  ?  " 

"  I  know  absolutely  nothing  about  it." 

Yakushkin  maintains  in  his  Memoirs  that  he 
did  really  know  very  little  of  the  programme  of 
the  constitution  elaborated  by  Nikita  Mouraviev. 

"  Then  wherein  did  your  activity  as  a  member 
of  the  Secret  Society  lie  ?  " 

"  I  was  endeavouring  to  find  means  and  ways 
to  abolish  serfdom  in  Russia,"  was  Yakushkin' s 
reply.  "  That  is  a  knot  that  the  Government  should 
either  disentangle  or  cut,  and  that  very  quickly, 
or  the  consequences  will  be  disastrous." 

"  But  what  do  you  expect  the  Government  to 
do  ?  "    cried  Levashev  in  surprise. 

"  The  Government,"  replied  the  prisoner,  "  could 
buy  the  freedom  of  the  serfs  from  the  landowners 
and  proprietors." 

"  But  that  is  quite  impossible,"  replied  the 
General.  "  You  know  perfectly  well  that  the 
Government  is  short  of  money." 

Once  more  Levashev  endeavoured  to  persuade 
the  prisoner  to  betray  his  fellow  conspirators  but 
Yakushkin  remained  firm.  He  was  then  requested 
to  sign  the  sheet  of  paper  upon  which  the  general 
had  written  the  confessions,  admissions  and  re- 
marks made  by  his  victim.  Yakushkin  signed 
without  reading  it.  He  was  then  ordered  to  retire 
into  an  adjoining  room,  and  here  the  phantom  of 
what  torture  might  mean  came  to  him,  and  his 
heart  fell,  but,  nevertheless,  he  decided  to  remain 
firm  and  follow  the  path  he  considered  honour 
dictated  to  him.  Ten  minutes  passed;  then  the 
door  opened  and  he  was  called  in  once  more.     This 


102        THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

time  Levashev  whs  ndt  alone;  the  new  Emperor 
stood  by  the  writing  table. 

"  You  have  broken  your  oath,"  thundered 
Nicholas. 

"  I  am  guilty,  your  Imperial  Highness  !  " 

"  What  do  you  expect  in  the  next  world  ? 
Have  you  thought  of  that  ?  Damnation  I  You 
may  despise  the  opinion  of  your  fellow  men,  but  the 
idea  of  what  is  in  store  for  you  in  the  next  world 
should  fill  your  heart  with  terror.  However," 
continued  the  autocrat,  "  I  shall  not  let  you  perish 
entirely  ;  I  shall  send  a  clergyman  to  you.  Well, 
have  you  nothing  to  say  ?  " 

''  What  is  it  that  your  Imperial  Highness  wishes 
me  to  say  ?  " 

"  I  think  that  I  have  spoken  quite  clearly  and 
distinctly.  If  you  are  anxious  not  to  ruin  your 
family,  if  you  do  not  wish  to  be  treated  like  a  pig, 
then  I  advise  you  to  confess  everything." 

*'  I  am  sorry,"  was  Yakushkin's  firm  reply,  *'  but 
I  gave  my  word  of  honour  not  to  betray  any  one. 
As  for  myself,  I  have  told  everything  concerning 
my  work  to  his  Excellency  here." 

"Go  to  the  devil  with  your  abominable  word 
of  honour  and  his  Excellency,"  was  Nicholas's 
vehement  reply. 

"  I  cannot  betray  my  friends,  your  Imperial 
Highness." 

The  new  Tsar  was  furious.  Pointing  to  the 
obstinate  prisoner,  he  commanded :  "  Put  him 
in  chains,  so  that  he  will  not  be  able  to  move." 

Yakushkin  confesses  that  he  at  first  had  been 
a  little  afraid  that  the  Tsar  would  adopt  a  dilTerent 
course  with  him :  would  work  upon  his  weakness 
and    his    sentimental    nature,    would     play    the 


DECEMBER  THE    14TH  108 

generous  and  magnanimous  ruler,  and  thus  get  the 
better  of  him.  But  Nicholas  had  decided  to  act 
otherwise,  which  seems  to  show  that  he  was  not 
the  fine  psychologist  and  detective  that  he  prided 
himself  on  being.  His  method  failed  in  this  case  ; 
throughout  the  conversation  the  prisoner  remained 
calm,  for  he  felt  himself  the  stronger  of  the  two. 
Then  Yakushkin  was  led  away.  Once  more  the 
fear  of  torture  took  hold  of  him  ;  he  felt  sure 
that  by  "  chains  "  the  Tsar  had  intimated  some 
form  of  torture,  only  it  was  not  decent  for  Majesty 
to  soil  its  lips  with  such  an  ugly  word. 

The  prisoner  was  put  in  chains  and  then  marched 
to  the  Alexis  Ravelin.  Passing  over  the  draw- 
bridge he  remembered  Dante's  lines :  "  Leave 
every  hope  behind  you,  all  ye  who  enter  here  !  " 
He  was  placed  in  a  tiny  cell,  but  six  feet  long  and 
four  wide.  It  was  furnished  with  a  bedstead, 
on  which  were  an  old  mattress  and  a  woollen  bed- 
cloth  such  as  are  used  in  hospitals,  two  chairs, 
a  nightlamp  and  a  small  table  upon  which  stood 
a  jug  of  water.  "  When  the  key  was  turned  in 
the  door  and  I  was  left  alone,"  writes  Yakushkin, 
*'  I  was  quite  happy  ;  torture  had  passed  me  by 
and  I  had  time  to  collect  my  thoughts  again.'' 

Another  obstinate  prisoner  was  Colonel  Lunin, 
famed  for  his  great  intelligence  and  energy.  He 
was  accused  of  regicidal  intentions.  "  Gentlemen," 
he  replied,  "  our  Secret  Society  never  contemplated 
regicide ;  its  aims  and  purpose  were  much  nobler. 
Yet  as  you  yourself  know  full  well,  the  idea  of 
regicide  is  not  new  to  Russia  ;  we  have  had  quite 
recent  examples  of  this."  Lunin  was  referring  to 
the  assassination  of  Paul  I.  Since  two  members 
of  the  court  of  inquiry  before  which  Lunin  had 


104        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

been  brought  had  been  mixed  up  in  that  assas- 
sination, his  reply  greatly  disconcerted  his  would-be 
judges  ;  these  two  members  were  Tatitshev  and 
Koutousov. 

*Many  attempts  were  made  to  force  Nikita 
Mouraviev  to  confess  that  the  Secret  Society  had 
aimed  at  founding  a  Republic  in  Russia.  "  Gentle- 
men," replied  Mouraviev  at  last,  tired  of  their 
insistence,  "  the  plan  for  a  constitution  which  I 
elaborated,  and  which  is  now  before  you,  is 
monarchical ;  but  since  my  arrest  I  have  had  time 
to  think,  therefore  I  now  frankly  declare  to  you 
that  I  have  become  a  convinced  Republican."  ^ 

After  his  own  preliminary  work,  the  Tsar  handed 
the  matter  over  to  a  Commission.  This  consisted 
of  the  Minister  of  War,  who  was  the  President ; 
Grand  Duke  Michael,  who  was  thus  both  judge 
and  prosecutor  ;  General  Diebitsh,  a  Prussian  who 
"  like  many  other  foreign  adventurers  enjoyed 
the  Imperial  favour "  ;  *  General  Koutousov, 
the  Governor-General  of  St.  Petersburg  ;  Prince 
Golitsyn ;  the  Generals  Potapov,  Levashev  and 
Tshernitshev.  Colonel  Adlerburg,  aide-de-camp 
to  the  Tsar,  was  also  present  to  take  notes  which 
were  passed  on  to  his  Imperial  master.  This 
tribunal  met  at  the  house  of  the  commandant  of 
the  fortress  of  the  capital,  and  when  orders  were 
given  to  hasten  the  conclusion  of  the  inquiry,  the 
sittings  were  held  during  the  night  as  well  as  the 
day.  It  was  Nicholas's  aim  not  only  to  judge 
and  punish  a  few  criminals,  but  also  "  to  penetrate 
into  the  innermost  recesses  of  the  conspiracy,  to 

1  Cf.   Th.    Schiemann,  Die  Ermordung  Pauls,   1902,  Berlin, 
p.  175. 

2  Mouraviev's  notes,  Schiemann,  I.e.,  p.  173. 


DECEMBER   THE   14TH  105 

discover  its  origin,  to  follow  it  up  in  all  its  ramifica- 
tions, to  gauge  its  progress  and  extent,  and  to 
establish  the  results  of  the  inquiry,  not  upon  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  and  probabilities,  but  upon 
certain  undeniable  facts  and  irrefutable  evidence 
and  proofs." 

Such  were  the  instructions  given  by  the  Tsar  to 
the  Commission.  The  Commission  finally  finished 
its  work,  and  Nicholas  was  satisfied  ;  he  had  con- 
quered a  powerful  enemy,  the  more  powerful  that 
he  had  worked  in  the  heart  of  the  Empire  and  not 
abroad. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Tsar  announced  his 
victory  to  his  beloved  subjects  is  worthy  of  special 
notice.  "  When,  thanks  to  the  impenetrable 
designs  of  the  Almighty,  a  conspiracy  was  revealed 
unto  us  in  the  first  few  days  of  our  reign,  a  con- 
spiracy that  had  already  been  in  existence  for 
over  ten  years  and  was  working  in  the  dark  against 
us,  we  at  once  recognised  the  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  will  invisibly  pointing  ou»t  to  us  our  duty 
and  our  present  conduct.  We  understood  the 
sanctity  of  our  obligations,  especially  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  conspiracy  was  not  only  a  danger 
to  ourselves  but  to  the  whole  of  Russia."  Thus 
the  Tsar  was  not  punishing  criminals,  and  it  was, 
of  course,  out  of  the  question  for  the  autocrat 
to  seek  revenge ;  he  was  simply  safeguarding 
Russia  ;  he  was  saving  the  revolutionaries  from 
themselves  by  removing  them  from  temptation. 

The  devil  is  not  the  only  one  who  can  quote 
Scripture  in  his  defence.  History  can  give  us 
many  instances  of  the  most  heinous  crimes  being 
explained  by  the  most  noble  and  unselfish  of 
motives.     Has  there  ever  been  a  crime  committed 


106        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

by  an  individual,  or  by  a  collectivity  in  power, 
that  was  not  labelled  by  that  individual,  or  that 
collectivity,  an  act  of  justice  or  a  deed  of  nobility  ? 
Thus  the  Tsar  surrounded  his  so-called  trials  wdth 
a  halo  of  justice,  although  the  Court  received  his 
instructions,  in  advance,  how  to  treat  each  par- 
ticular prisoner.  Elizabeth  Petrovna,  the  daughter 
of  Peter  the  Great,  had  abolished  capital  punish- 
ment for  ordinary  criminals,  but  not  for  political 
prisoners.  It  would,  however,  be  unwise  to 
imagine  that  the  Tsaritza,  in  abolishing  capital 
punishment  for  assassins  and  brigands,  had  been 
actuated  by  any  feeling  of  pity  or  special  clemency 
towards  her  subjects. 

A  close  study  of  this  history  of  the  Romanovs 
has  convinced  us  that  Alexander  II  is  the  only 
Romanov  who  ever  exhibited  the  slightest  degree 
of  generosity  towards  his  people.  Nicholas  I  cer- 
tainly never  manifested  any,  and  the  measure 
abolishing  the  death  penalty  in  the  case  of  ordinary 
criminals  promulgated  by  Elizabeth  Petrovna  was 
dictated  by  more  selfish  considerations  than  a 
mere  dislike  to  shedding  human  blood.  There 
were  mines  that  had  to  be  worked  and  exploited, 
and  for  which  voluntary  labour  was  difficult  to 
obtain  ;  therefore,  forced  labour  had  to  be  found, 
so  the  gallows  and  the  ravens  were  deprived  of 
their  victims.  There  were  also  vast  tracts  of  land 
which  did  not  attract  the  colonist,  and  criminals  were 
exiled  to  those  inhospitable  regions.  The  mines 
were  Russia's  dry  guillotine;  they  had  a  double 
advantage  in  the  eyes  of  autocracy :  they  not  only 
swallowed  the  Tsar's  political  enemies  and  rendered 
them  harmless,  but  they  also  yielded  a  handsome 
profit  to  the  State. 


DECEMBER   THE   UTH  107 

Of  course  the  judgments  of  the  Court  were 
very  severe  on  the  Decembrists.  The  Tsar  had 
wished  that  the  punishment  should  be  severe,  so 
as  to  give  liim  an  opportunity  to  exercise  his 
Imperial  clemency.  He  had  two  reasons  for  this  : 
he  wished  to  impress  the  masses  of  his  subjects 
with  the  nobility  of  his  sentiments  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  on  the  other,  he  was  fully  aware  that 
the  eyes  of  Europe  were  upon  him. 

Yet  Nicholas  was  anxious  not  onlv  to  have  his 
revenge,  but  also  to  impress  upon  all  embryo  revo- 
lutionaries the  utter  foolishness  and  futility  of 
making  another  effort.  He  decided  to  make  an 
example  with  a  few  of  the  leaders  and  to  arrange 
the  rest  into  separate  groups.  Five  were,  there- 
fore, placed  io  to  speak  hors  concours  :  they  were 
condemned  to  death — that  is,  to  be  quartered. 
These  five  were  Colonel  Pestel,  Sub-Colonel  Sergius 
Mouraviev-Apostol,  and  the  three  officers,  Peter 
Kakhovsky,  Michael  Bestyoushev-Ryoumin  and 
Kondraty  Ryleev.  Of  the  remaining  116,  thirty- 
one  were  to  be  hanged,  seventeen  were  condemned 
to  perpetual  servitude  in  the  mines,  and  the  other 
eighty-five  to  various  terms  of  penal  servitude 
and  exile.  The  sentences  were  then  graciously 
commuted  by  the  sovereign.  The  thirty-one 
condenmed  to  be  hanged  had  their  sentence  com- 
muted into  penal  servitude,  while  the  sentences  of 
the  remaining  eighty-five  were  all  reduced.  As 
regards  the  five  placed  hors  concours ,  the  Tsar  per- 
mitted the  death  penalty,  but  informed  the  Court 
that  he  wished  the  men  punished  in  such  a  way 
as  to  avoid  the  "  shedding  of  blood  "  !  The  Court 
literally  followed  the  gracious  instructions  of  his 
Majesty  :     the  five  w^ere  hanged  !     The  sentence 


108         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

was  executed  upon  them  on  the  night  of  July  12th- 
18th. 

"  Night  is  propitious  for  crime,"  writes  Alex- 
ander Mouraviev,  the  brother  of  Nikita  Mouraviev, 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  his  wife.  "  We  were  led 
out  into  an  open  space  in  front  of  the  fortress  and 
there  we  saw  the  gallows.  Those  of  us  who  were 
in  uniform  had  it  stripped  off ;  the  uniforms 
were  then  thrown  into  the  fire,  our  swords  were 
broken  over  our  heads  ;  we  were  degraded,  we 
were  outlaws  to  be  shunned  by  man  and  cursed  by 
God.  Whilst  we  were  l^eing  led  back  to  our  cells, 
our  five  companions  were  being  seized  and  led  to  the 
gallows.  Two  of  our  unfortunate  and  noble  com- 
panions, Ryleev  and  Sergius  Mouraviev-Apostol, 
were  thrown  down  from  the  top  of  the  gallows  ; 
the  fall  broke  their  limbs  ;  they  were  then  hanged, 
mutilated  as  they  were."  ^ 

But  no  blood  had  been  shed,  and  the  instructions 
of  the  Tsar  had  been  carried  out  to  the  letter. 
The  victims  paid  the  penalty  for  a  crime  which 
humanity  at  large,  Governments  in  power  but, 
above  all,  autocrats,  can  never  pardon :  the 
crime  of  harbouring  new  and  revolutionary  ideas — 
subversive  and  progressive  ideas  that  attack  and 
criticise  the  order  of  things  as  they  are,  ideas  that 
are  the  true  birthright  of  man  and  that  emanate 
from  his  innate  craving  for  independence  and 
freedom.  But,  alas !  to  think  differently  from 
those  in  power,  be  it  in  the  domain  of  religion, 
politics  or  sociology,  does  not  suit  those  who  have 
usurped  and  cling  to  power.  Criticism  of  au- 
thority, sincere  thought  on  justice  and  injustice 
may  lead  to  action,  may  cause  the  masses  to  realise 

1  Schiemann,  Z.c,,p.  177. 


DECEMBER   THE   14TH  109 

for  whose  benefit  the  authorities,  in  all  ages  and 
in  all  countries,  think  and  labour.  The  masses 
might  even  take  it  into  their  stupid  heads  to 
shake  off  the  shackles  of  thraldom  and  hurl  the 
usurpers  of  power  and  authority  from  their 
pedestals.  And  therefore  the  pioneers  of  new 
ideas  have  always  been  persecuted,  exiled,  im- 
prisoned, thrown  into  lions'  dens,  led  to  scaffolds 
and  crucified. 

Yet  justice  is  always  at  hand,  and  history 
generall}'-  revenges  itself.  That  which  one  genera- 
tion condemns  as  blasphemous  or  hateful,  the  next 
will  uphold  and  adore.  To  the  memory  of  those 
whom  one  generation  put  to  death,  the  next  will 
erect  statues  and  altars,  and  pious  pilgrims  will  flock 
to  their  flower-strewn  shrines.  The  despised  and 
persecuted  revolutionaries  of  one  age  become  the 
prophets  of  the  next.  What  would  Nicholas  I 
think  of  the  Russia  of  to-day  ? 

The  pioneers  of  Russian  freedom  were  buried 
secretly  on  one  of  the  islands  of  the  Neva,  and  swift 
messengers  were  sent  to  Tsarkoe  Selo  to  tell  the 
Tsar  that,  at  last,  he  was  revenged  upon  his 
enemies  and  could  sleep  in  peace. 

Whilst  the  judges  and  other  servile  servants  of 
autocracy  were  rewarded  with  titles  and  gifts  for 
their  obedience,  there  were  some  who  swore  re- 
venge. One  poor  lieutenant,  a  soldier's  son,  was 
ordered  to  lead  the  five  political  criminals  to  the 
gallows,  but  he  refused.  "  I  have  served  with 
honour,"  he  replied,  pointing  to  the  cross  of  St. 
George  pinned  upon  his  breast,  "  and  now  in  my 
old  age  I  refuse  to  become  the  hangman  of  five 
men  whom  I  sincerely  respect."  Again,  Colonel 
Zoubov  of  the  Cavalier  Guards  bluntly  refused  to 


110        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

lead  his  regiment  to  the  scene  of  the  execution. 
"  They  are  my  comrades,"  he  said,  "  and  I  shall 
not  go."  ^  Thus  there  were  some  who  dared  to  be 
themselves  even  at  the  moment  when  all  trembled 
before  the  new  ruler. 

The  first  batch  of  prisoners  were  sent  to  the 
mines  on  July  18th  ;  they  were  put  in  chains  and 
marched  off  to  their  distant  destination.  Though 
the  Tsar  was  anxious  to  cut  these  individuals  out 
of  the  communal  life,  to  eradicate  their  very 
memory,  yet  he  did  not  succeed.  Several  of  the 
wives  of  the  condemned  followed  them  into  exile, 
and  thus  a  link  was  forged  between  the  socially 
and  politically  dead  and  Russian  society.  Some 
of  the  condemned  had  the  terms  of  their  servitude 
reduced  several  times — whenever,  indeed,  the  Tsar 
thought  it  necessary  to  show  himself  the  benevolent 
ruler.  But  even  then  they  were  relegated  to  the 
most  distant  corners  of  Siberia,  and  not  permitted 
to  communicate  with  each  other. 

In  1856,  Alexander  II,  when  he  ascended  the 
throne,  permitted  the  few  remaining  Decembrists 
to  return  to  civilisation  and  to  live  where  they 
chose,  except  in  either  of  the  two  capitals,  Moscow 
or  St.  Petersburg.  Twenty-nine  availed  them- 
selves of  his  clemency  ;  the  rest  had  either  died 
long  before  or  been  allowed  to  leave  Siberia. 
These  twenty-nine  were  reinstated  in  their  social 
positions,  but  Alexander's  generosity  did  not  go 
so  far  as  to  return  to  them  their  property  which 
his  august  father  had  confiscated. 

Before  leaving  the  history  of  the  Decembrists, 
the  pioneers  of  the  Russian  Revolution  and  Russian 
struggle  for  freedom,  it  may  be  as  well  to  examine 

1  Schiemann,  I.e.,  p.  177. 


DECEMBER   THE   14TH  111 

their  ideas  and  aspirations.  The  Decembrists 
were  revolutionary  patriots.  Their  patriotism  was 
based  upon  their  love  for  Russia  and  an  ardent 
desire  to  see  their  country  independent  of  other 
nations,  externally  and  internally.  Their  love  for 
Russia's  past,  for  those  moments  in  her  history 
that  marked  the  self-assertion  of  the  national 
character,  made  them  yearn  for  a  revival  of  the 
popular  assemblies  in  Red  Russia  and  for  the 
power  and  independence  of  old  Novgorod.  Though 
the  Decembrists  aimed  at  introducing  reforms  and 
institutions  similar  to  those  then  prevailing  in 
Western  Europe,  yet  these  were  not  to  be  mere 
slavish  imitations  ;  they  were  to  be  adapted  to 
suit  Russian  peculiarities. 

Unlike  the  Slavophiles,  the  Decembrists  did 
not  believe  in  Russia's  special  mission,  but  they 
had  great  faith  in  the  moral  and  physical  qualities 
of  the  nation.  Some  of  them  were  in  favour  of  a 
constitutional  monarchy,  whilst  others  were  Re- 
publicans pure  and  simple.  The  majority  were 
opposed  to  socialism  as  it  then  existed  ;  in  religion 
they  were  convinced  deists.  They  all  recognised 
the  necessity  of  a  revolution,  it  being  the  only 
means  of  introducing  any  new  political  or  social 
institutions  into  Russia.  It  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  this  revolutionary  group  was  not  com- 
posed of  proletarians  and  working  men,  but  of 
officers  belonging  to  the  highest  nobility,  all  of 
them  very  rich  and  the  owners  of  vast  tracts  of 
land  and  thousands  of  serfs. 

The  majority  of  the  Decembrists,  therefore, 
thought  of  a  political,  not  of  a  social  and  economic 
revolution.  It  was  but  natural  that  Colonel 
Pest  el's    proposition    to    dispossess    the    seigneurs 


112         THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and  hand  over  the  land  to  the  peasants,  found  but 
little  encouragement  among  this  revolutionary 
group  of  aristocrats.  But  Pestel,  inspired  by 
Babeuf,  St.  Simon  and  Fourier,  was  neither  a 
dreamer  nor  a  Utopian  ;  he  was  simply  a  socialist 
before  socialism  had  been  crystallised  into  a  doc- 
trine. He  had  grasped  the  true  reality  of  things 
and  was  well  acquainted  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Russian  nation.  If  the  land  were  left  in  the 
hands  of  the  nobles,  he  argued,  there  would  be 
an  oligarchy,  and  the  peasants  would  scarcely 
realise,  much  less  appreciate,  their  freedom,  for 
freedom  without  land  would  mean  but  little  to 
them.  It  was  Pestel  who  first  insisted  upon  drag- 
ging in  the  people,  the  masses,  and  making  them 
participate  in  the  revolution.  Yet  Pestel  was 
mistaken  on  both  these  points.  It  was  not  then 
possible  for  his  friends,  the  landed  aristocracy,  to 
work  for  a  social  revolution,  neither  could  the 
people  make  common  cause  with  the  nobles  ;  at 
that  time  their  interests  were  so  vastly  different. 

The  revolution  of  the  Decembrists  has  been  ' 
styled  a  "  bourgeois  movement."  If  one  takes 
"  bourgeois "  as  being  distinct  from  proletarian, 
this  definition  is  correct ;  with  the  exception  of 
Pestel  and  a  few  others  the  Decembrists  were 
bourgeois  in  their  tendencies.  Their  constitutional 
plans,  always  excepting  Pestel,  did  not  speak  of 
universal  suffrage.  Yet  this  bourgeois  spirit  was 
not  the  result  only  of  group  psychology,  but  also 
arose  out  of  the  prevailing  view-point  of  Europe 
which  manifested  itself  clearly  in  the  political 
literature  of  that  time.  "  The  social  questions," 
.-, writes  Herzen,  "  interested  no  one  in  Europe  in 
those    days.      Gracchus    Babeuf,    '  the    madman 


DECEMBER  THE  14TH  113 

and  savage,'  was  already  forgotten.  It  is  true 
that  St.  Simon  was  writing  his  treatises,  but  no  one 
read  them.  Fourier  was  in  the  same  predicament, 
whilst  few  were  interested  in  Robert  Owen's  Essays. 
Even  the  most  prominent  liberals  of  that  period, 
Benjamin  Constant  and  P.  L.  Courrier,  would  have 
indignantly  repudiated  Pestel's  propositions  which 
were  put  before  a  society  of  very  wealthy  noble- 
men, not  a  club  of  proletarians."  ^  The  revolu- 
tion of  the  Decembrists,  or  rather,  the  ideas  of  the 
revolutionaries  were,  to  a  certain  extent,  those 
which  brought  about  the  French  Revolution  of 
1789,  which  was  a  bourgeois,  censiiaire  regime.  It 
was  only  on  August  19th,  1792,  that  democracy 
was  established  by  the  introduction  of  universal 
suffrage.* 

We  have  defined  the  revolution  of  the  Decem- 
brists as  a  bourgeois  movement,  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  proletarian,  but  this  statement  does  not 
imply  that  it  was  made  by  the  bourgeoisie.  It 
was  the  revolt  of  a  group  of  nobles,  officers  and 
soldiers.  The  movement  was  wholly  political ; 
these  first  Russian  revolutionaries  were  anxious  to 
maintain  in  the  social  structure  of  the  country 
all  that  was  possible  of  the  old  institutions  ;  they 
only  sacrificed  what  they  were  absolutely  obliged 
to  sacrifice,  and  what  would  have  been  a  direct 
and  flagrant  contradiction  of  political  freedom. 
Serfdom,  of  course,  would  have  to  be  abolished. 
Though  not  anxious,  like  Pestel,  to  gain  the 
people   and   the   peasants    as    adherents    of  their 

^  Cf.  A.  Herzen,  Du  developpemcnt  des  idees  revolutionnairet 
en  Russie,  London,  1853,  p.  67.     Pokrovski,  I.e.,  i,  p.  102. 

2  Cf.  A.  Aulard,  Histoire  politique  de  la  Revolution  Fran^aiee, 
Paris,  1901,  p.  vi. 

8 


114         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

movement,  the  majority  of  the  Decembrists  knew 
that  they  would  have  to  grant  certain  things  to 
them,  otherwise  Jacqueries,  such  as  those  led  by 
Pougatshev,  would  threaten  society,  and  they 
knew  that  no  constitution  could  stand  against  the 
peasant  risings.  Yet  the  basis  of  their  revolu- 
tionary movement  was  practically  the  old  social 
structure,  artist ocratic  and  bourgeois. 

Even  the  republican  tendencies  of  the  Southern 
League  in  no  way  contradicted  these  ideas.  To 
the  majority  of  the  conspirators,  republicanism 
meant,  not  real  democracy,  but  a  limitation,  or 
abolition,  of  monarchy.  The  opposition  to  auto- 
cracy of  the  Russian  nobility  as  a  group  existed 
long  before  1825,  and  several  attempts  had  already 
been  made  by  that  group  to  limit  the  autocratic 
and  monarchic  power.  Thus,  though  republicans, 
the  Decembrists  were  not  democrats  ;  a  true  demo- 
crat must  logically  be  also  a  republican,  but  a 
republican  need  not  be  a  democrat.  Not  all  the 
Decembrists,  as  I  have  shown,  were  republicans, 
but  all  of  them  were  "  monarchomachs,"  or  enemies 
of  absolute  monarchy. 

The  Decembrists  also  made  the  common  mistake 
of  imagining  that  revolutions  are  made  by  indi- 
viduals, strong  men,  heroes ;  that  the  French 
Revolution  was  the  work  of  Danton,  Mirabeau  and 
Robespierre,  for  example.  They  did  not  realise 
that  the  French  Revolution,  like  all  other  revolu- 
tions, was  the  logical  result  of  the  discontent  and 
ferment  of  various  groups,  not  of  the  multitude, 
but  of  organised  groups,  and  that  it  was  national 
and  nameless.  The  individuals  render  invalu- 
able service,  of  course  ;  in  each  group  there  are 
always  one  or  two,  sometimes  more,  individuals 


DECEMBER   THE  14TH  115 

who  are  more  capable,  more  energetic  than  the 
others,  and  who  therefore  distinguish  themselves 
and  become  the  leaders,  but  even  then  they  draw 
their  strength,  their  inspiration,  from  the  masses. 
The  organised  groups  manifest  their  will,  crystallise 
their  thoughts  and  give  voice  to  their  innermost 
feelings  and  needs.  The  so-called  leaders  consti- 
tute the  concrete  manifestation  of  the  abstract 
soul  of  the  masses.  Therefore  a  movement  that 
does  not  emanate  from  the  masses  is  doomed  to 
failure. 

Napoleon  and  Nicholas  I  both  seem  to  have 
understood  this  very  well.  They  knew  that  the 
groups  were  animated  by  a  spirit  of  revolt,  "but 
that  they  were  not  sufficiently  developed  to  be 
able  to  analyse  either  their  feelings  or  their  dor- 
mant aspirations,  yet  if  the  people  were  once  able 
to  take  cognisance  of  themselves,  they  would 
rouse  from  their  lethargy.  Therefore,  it  was  both 
Napoleon's  and  Nicholas's  policy,  as  well  as  that 
of  later  Tsars,  to  prevent  the  people  thinking  and 
reasoning.  It  was  for  the  same  reason,  to  prevent 
the  people  thinking,  reasoning,  analysing  or  ques- 
tioning established  authority,  that  Papacy  forbade 
Roman  Catholics  to  read  the  Bible.  The  study 
of  the  Bible  logically  led  to  questioning  of  the  Papal 
authority,  to  Protestantism. 

Again,  the  Decembrists  imagined  that  a  hand- 
ful of  noblemen  could  bring  about  a  successful 
revolution.  They  neglected  the  people.  Pestel 
alone  understood  the  spirit  of  the  Russian  nation 
and,  perhaps,  was  the  only  Decembrist  who  was  a 
true  pioneer  to  later  generations.  He  understood 
that  a  political  revolution  must  be  accompanied 
by  a  social  revolution,   otherwise  it   would   only 


116        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

mean  a  shifting  of  power  from  the  hand  of  one 
man  to  those  of  a  chque  ;  this  is  the  case  in  our 
day  in  many  of  the  great  RepubHcs  and  Con- 
stitutional Monarchies.  Pestel  also  understood 
that  a  revolution  must  be  based  upon  democracy, 
and,  in  an  agrarian  country  like  Russia,  land  and 
freedom  were  inseparable  for  the  millions  of  pea- 
sants. "  We  may  proclaim  a  republic,"  said 
Pestel,  "  but  there  will  be  chaos  among  us  ;  there 
will  be  no  general,  popular  rising  until  we  abolish 
the  ownership  of  the  nobles.  The  peasant  requires 
jthe  land."  ^  "  Pestel,"  writes  Herzen,  *'  made  a 
■  mistake  ;  he  miscalculated  the  time,  but  none  the 
^less  he  was  a  true  prophet." 

Yet  despite  the  mistakes  of  the  Decembrists, 
despite  their  fate,  their  conspiracy  exercised  a 
profound  influence  upon  later  generations,  not  so 
much,  perhaps,  because  of  their  propaganda  and 
theories  as  because  of  their  example,  their  heroic 
attitude  in  the  public  square,  during  their  trials, 
in  prison,  in  the  presence  of  their  judges  and  of 
the  Emperor  himself,  while  in  exile  and  at  work 
in  the  mines.  They  broke  the  silence,  they  opened 
a  window  through  which  a  fresh  breath  of  freedom 
could  penetrate  into  the  soul  of  the  people  and 
awaken  from  them  their  passivity.  The  Russians 
did  not  lack  liberal  or  revolutionary  ideas,  or  even 
realisation  of  their  wrongs,  but  that  audacity  and 
initiative  that  stimulate  thought  into  action.* 

It  was  this  that  the  Decembrists  provided. 
Other  groups,  seething  with  discontent,  followed 
the    example    of    the    nobles    and    officers.     The 

1  Cf.   Pokrovsky,  I.e.,  p.    118;    Herzen,   La  Conspiration  de 
1825. 

2  Cf.  Herzen,  I.e.,  p.  68. 


DECEMBER  THE  14TH  117 

bandage  fell  from  the  eyes  of  many,  for  from  the 
top  of  their  gallows,  from  the  depth  of  the  mines, 
from  their  exile,  the  Decembrists  called  to  the 
soul  of  Russia.  The  revolt  was  ruthlessly  quelled, 
it  is  true,  but  its  idea  could  not  be  crushed  :  it 
remained  a  living  seed  destined  to  blossom  and 
bear  fruit  in  a  later  generation.  Truly,  "  the 
cannon  shots  on  the  Isaac  Square  awakened  the 
entire  generation "  and  became  the  trumpet-call 
that  announced  the  day  of  Judgment  for  the  house 
of  Romanov. 


CHAPTER    VI 

THE    TRIUMPH    OF    AUTOCRACY 

From  the  Reign  of  Nicholas   I,   1825,   until 
THE  Emancipation  of  the  Serfs,  1861 

Nicholas  I  looked  upon  liberalism  as  something 
plebeian  and  an  insult  to  his  Imperial  dignity.  He 
did  his  best,  or  his  worst,  to  crush  the  spirit  of 
revolt  and  became  the  Don  Quixote  of  Absolutism, 
not  only  in  Russia  but  in  Europe.  He  believed 
wholly  in  militarism,  and  considered  that  obedience 
was  the  first  duty  of  a  subject.  The  Tsar  de- 
clared brutally  and  frankly  his  belief  that  auto- 
cracy was  the  only  possible  happy  mode  of  life 
for  humanity.  Anything  that  even  savoured  of 
democracy  was  a  crime.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  the  Tsar  made  one  or  two  attempts  to  reform 
the  bureaucracy  in  Russia  ;  it  was  of  this  band 
of  thieves  that  he  said  :  "I  and  my  son  are  the 
only  men  in  Russia  who  do  not  steal."  But 
Nicholas  soon  convinced  himself  that  it  was  waste 
labour.  Tsardom  relied  upon  bureaucracy,  there- 
fore it  became  the  representative  of  autocracy,  its 
instrument  of  oppression,  and  was  consequently 
despised  and  hated  by  the  nation. 

It  seemed  as  if  the  Tsar  had  succeeded  in  crush- 
ing the  spirit  of  revolt  in  Russia.  The  country 
was  seamed  with  a  net  of  spies ;    it  was  like  a 

118 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  AUTOCRACY    119 

spider's  web  in  the  midst  of  which  sat  Beelzebub, 
the  head  of  the  third  section  who  was  responsible 
only  to  the  Tsar  himself.  In  many  ways  Russia 
resembled  old  Venice,  for  any  Russian  who  even 
in  the  innermost  recesses  of  his  soul  dreamed  of 
freedom  carried  his  life  in  his  hands,  as  in  some 
unguarded  moment  his  looks  would  mirror  his 
mind.  It  was  a  bitter  time  for  the  spirit  of  re- 
volt ;  it  met  with  practically  no  sympathy  even 
from  the  rest  of  Europe,  for  there  the  autocrat 
was  hailed  as  the  guardian  of  conservative  interests. 
In  order  to  live,  the  subjects  of  Tsar  Nicholas  had 
to  be  hypocrites,  for  no  one  can  expect  an  entire 
nation  to  become  martyrs,  xiutocracy  had  tri- 
umphed, or  so  it  seemed. 

But  the  Tsar  was  mistaken.  Even  during  his 
iron  reign,  despite  the  horror  and  the  severity, 
the  spirit  of  revolt  still  lived,  still  hoped,  still 
struggled,  still  fought  to  make  itself  ready  to 
emerge  one  day  to  full  consciousness  of  its  strength. 
After  all,  thought  cannot  be  muzzled  ;  an  electric 
fluid  cannot  be  caught  and  imprisoned ;  man's 
ideas  are  his  own  and  are  impregnable.  Russia, 
at  this  time,  was  like  a  living  stream  covered  with 
a  thick  crust  of  ice.  The  ice-bound  river  had 
stopped  the  spirit  of  revolt,  but  underneath  the 
thick  ice  sheet  the  waters  were  still  running,  and 
one  day  they  would  break  the  ice  and  overflow 
the  banks.  Every  now  and  then  an  effort  at 
revolt  was  made  even  during  the  reign  of  Nicholas, 
thus  showing  the  Tsar  that  Holy  Russia  was  not 
so  immaculate,  so  unpolluted  by  the  sinful  spirit 
of  the  age  as  he  had  imagined.  Thus  in  1848  the 
Petrashevski  conspiracy  was  hatched  and  dis- 
covered. 


120         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Early  in  March  of  the  same  year,  and  but  a 
few  days  before  the  news  of  the  Berlin  Revolution 
reached  St.  Petersburg,  Count  Perovski,  Minister 
of  the  Interior,  was  informed  of  the  existence  of 
a  complot,  and  that  secret  leaflets  composed  and 
printed  by  Michael  Petrashevski,  an  official  at  the 
Ministry,  had  been  distributed.  The  news  made 
a  deep  impression  upon  the  Tsar,  who  thought 
that  he  had  entirely  freed  Russia  from  all  revo- 
lutionary ideas. 

Liprandi  was  entrusted  with  the  inquiry,  and 
this  clever  spy  soon  discovered  that  Petrashevski 
had  been  marked  '*  suspect "  by  the  Secret  Police 
in  1845.  He  had  compiled  a  dictionary  of  all  the 
foreign  expressions  that  had  been  given  citizen 
rights  in  the  Riissian  language,  and  he  had  in- 
cluded various  "  political  allusions "  !  It  was 
also  discovered  that  Petrashevski  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  receiving  parties  of  young  men  in  his 
rooms,  and,  instead  of  playing  cards  or  drinking 
like  respectable  people,  they  spent  their  time  dis- 
cussing plans  for  new  laws,  etc.  In  short,  he  had 
formed  a  literary  club. 

Liprandi  made  his  report  in  1849,  a  few  weeks 
after  Austria  had  asked  the  Tsar  to  help  her  quell 
the  Hungarian  Revolution.  Petrashevski  and  his 
comrades,  thirty-three  in  number,  were  arrested 
and  taken  to  the  fortress  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 
Among  the  accused,  were  eight  officials,  two 
chamberlains,  four  officers  of  the  guard,  two 
authors,  two  students,  one  teacher  of  languages 
and  "  one  citizen."  This  proves  that  the  spirit 
of  revolt  in  Russia  which  had  first  manifested  itself 
among  the  Cossacks  and  peasants,  as  shown  by 
their  Jacqueries  and  risings  during  the  seventeenth 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  AUTOCRACY    121 

and  eighteenth  centuries,  and  later  among  the 
officers  and  soldiers,  had  not,  even  as  late  as  1850, 
penetrated  the  middle  classes,  the  merchants  or 
working  men.  These  groups  only  accepted  the 
revolutionary  idea  during  the  second  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

The  inquiry  lasted  eight  months,  but  sentence 
was  not  passed  until  1850,  after  the  Hungarian 
campaign.  The  young  men  were  accused  of  being 
in  favour  of  the  ''  pernicious  doctrines "  which 
had  gained  ground  in  Western  Europe  and  which 
threatened  to  deprive  the  Western  nations  of 
happiness  and  prosperity.  In  Holy  Russia,  where 
the  Government  of  the  Tsar  carefully  watched  all 
such  movements,  a  few  wicked  young  men,  some 
thoroughly  depraved,  others  merely  their  victims, 
had  formed  a  secret  society  w^ith  the  intention  of 
overthrowing  the  Government  and  introducing 
anarchy  in  place  of  order.  Twenty-one  of  these 
criminals  were  condemned  to  death  ;  among  these 
were  Petrashevski  and  Dostoievski.  Nicholas  read 
the  sentence  and  then  deigned  to  commute  it.  He 
wrote:  *'The  sentence  should  be  read  to  the  criminals 
in  presence  of  the  troops ;  then,  after  the  prepara- 
tions of  all  minute  details  preceding  the  execution, 
it  should  be  announced  that  the  Emperor  had 
graciously  pardoned  them,  and  commuted  the 
death  penalty  into  that  of  loss  of  civil  right  and, 
according  to  the  degree  of  their  guilt,  banishment 
to  the  mines,  penal  servitude,  fortress  or  incor- 
poration in  the  army." 

Once   more   the   Tsar   and   autocracy   had   tri- 
umphed.^    The  spirit  of  revolt  sighed  in  exile,  in 

^  Cf.    J.    von    Eckhardt,   Nicholaus   I — Alexander   III,    pp. 
63-112. 


122         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

prison  or  on  the  snowfields  of  Siberia,  whilst  flat- 
terers and  reactionaries  sang  a  hymn  of  praise  and 
hosannas  to  the  guardian  of  absolutism  and  con- 
servative principles.  Loudest  in  this  chorus  was 
the  voice  of  Prussia.  The  land  which  has  since 
produced  the  "  Hymn  of  Hate  "  produced  a  poet 
who  sang  a  hymn  to  the  knout :  "  Hoch  die 
russische  Knut "  was  published  in  1852. 

I  have  said  that  the  oppressive  measures 
taken  by  the  Government  during  the  reign  of 
Nicholas  I  in  the  endeavour  to  crush  the  spirit 
of  revolt  in  Russia  only  succeeded  outwardly. 
Governments  may  imprison  their  subjects,  may 
torture  or  kill  them ;  they  may  prevent  freedom  of 
speech,  but  they  can  never  imprison  the  mind. 
''My  thoughts  are  my  own,  and  no  power  on  earth 
can  prevent  me  thinking  that  which  I  am  not 
permitted  to  say  aloud."  Even  in  the  darkest 
ages  of  slavery  man's  mind  was  always  free. 
When  man  clamours  for  freedom,  he  really  means 
freedom  of  his  body,  or,  at  the  highest,  freedom  to 
communicate  his  thoughts  to  his  fellow  men ;  his 
mind  is  always  free  ;  he  can  always  think  what 
he  will. 

But  what  is  the  result  ?  Compelled  to  live  intro- 
spectively,  to  concentrate  his  thoughts,  he  learns 
to  develop  them  more  fully ;  he  clings  to  them 
more  fondly,  for  they  constitute  his  most  precious 
possession,  and,  when  the  propitious  moment 
arrives,  his  crystallised  thoughts  are  sent  forth 
like  a  fertile  stream  to  water  the  desert.  It  is 
true  that  during  the  reign  of  Nicholas  I  men  were 
unable  to  do  anything  in  Russia  ;  their  bodies 
were  enslaved,  but  they  thought  all  the  more,  and 
their  minds  being  busy  the  spirit  of  revolt  grew 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF   AUTOCRACY      123 

stronger  and  more  vigorous  while  waiting  for  the 
opportunity  to  spread  its  wings.  Educated  people 
read,  thought  and  discussed  in  secret,  whilst  the 
ignorant  masses  instinctively  suffered  and  brooded, 
gradually  forming  opinions,  hopes  and  aspira- 
tions. During  the  last  few  years  of  Nicholas' 
reign  a  feeling  that  things  could  not  go  on  as  they 
had  done,  that  there  must  soon  be  a  change,  was 
abroad  in  the  land. 

Though  the  number  of  secret  malcontents  and 
rSvolUs  greatly  increased  during  the  autocratic 
reign  of  Nicholas,  yet  because  of  the  severity  of 
the  police  and  the  network  of  spies,  any  organised 
revolutionary  party  or  parties  was  impossible 
after  the  bloody  days  of  1826.  There  were  only 
three  distinct  homesteads,  as  it  were,  for  the  spirit 
of  revolt.  These  were,  firstlv,  the  members  of  the 
old  boyarin  families  who  had  lost  favour  at  Court 
and  been  placed  on  the  retired  list.  Among  these 
were  the  inheritors  of  the  liberal  tendencies  of 
1825  and  the  reign  of  Alexander  I.  The  ideal  of 
this  jronde  was  a  limitation  of  absolute  monarchy 
by  the  aristocracy.  Their  discontent  was  stimu- 
lated bv  their  hatred  of  the  ever-increasing  influ- 
ence  of  the  Court  and  military  camarilla,  which 
were  mostly  German.  The  universities  made 
another  homestead.  Here  a  new  and  fresh  life 
was  developing  despite  the  numerous  government 
restrictions  that  dealt  with  every  detail,  from  the 
lectures  to  the  life  and  dress  of  the  students  ;  they 
endeavoured  to  militarise  the  universities. 

Then  suddenly  there  arose  an  opportunity  which 
autocracy  had  hoped  to  use  for  its  own  purposes, 
but  which  soon  proved  of  great  help  to  the  grow- 
ing ferment.     This   was   the  Crimean  War.     The 


124        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

wars  which  Russian  autocracy  has  waged  since 
1812  have  always  been  reflected  in  the  internal 
policy  of  the  country,  and  have  had  a  deep  and 
far-reaching  effect  upon  the  development  of  the 
national  consciousness.  Until  1812,  the  wars 
waged  by  autocracy  had  passed  almost  unnoticed 
by  the  masses  of  the  nation.  The  specifically 
Russian  patriotism  set  burning  by  Rostopt shin's 
torches,  changed  into  a  new  flame,  the  flame  of 
cosmopolitan — ecstasy  for  freedom,  freedom  of 
nations,  which  in  the  course  of  a  century  has  not 
yet  been  extinguished.  The  events  of  1825,  though 
apparently  a  failure,  had  sown  seeds  in  fertile 
ground.  A  system  was  gradually  being  prepared 
which  was  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of 
Nicholas  I.  Nicholas  had  triumphed  over  Russia, 
triumphed  over  democracy  in  1848,  during  the 
Hungarian  campaign,  and  the  slaves  and  flatterers 
of  Tsardom  were  convinced  that  if  the  Tsar  wished, 
he  could  triumph  over  Europe. 

Nicholas  had  failed.  The  bankruptcy  of  Russia 
was  proved  ;  the  idol  had  feet  of  clay.  Russia's 
thinking  sons,  children  of  revolt,  were  genuinely 
sorry  and  suffered  deeply  over  the  fall  of  Sebastopol, 
but,  nevertheless,  they  were  convinced  that  the 
true  happiness  and  welfare  of  the  nation,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  Tsardom,  had  nothing  to  fear 
from  the  Anglo-French  victories  at  Inkermann 
and  on  the  banks  of  the  Tshernaya,  and  that  the 
fall  of  Saragossa  would  render  a  greater  service 
to  Russia  than  those  who  had  stormed  Malakoff.^ 
For  a  quarter  of  a  century  Nicholas'  will  had  been 
law,  not  only  for  Russia  but  for  Europe.  He 
alone  had  been  able  to  cry  "  stop  "  to  the  storm 
^  Cf.  J.  von  Eckhardt,  Russland  vor  und  nach  dem  Kriege,  p.  327. 


THE  TRIUMPH   OF  AUTOCRACY    125 

of  revolution,  to  the  demands  of  democracy,  to 
crush  every  liberal  thought  and  gesture  of  free- 
dom. The  Tsar,  it  was  thought,  must  return  of 
course  triumphant  and  victorious,  and  the  Tsar's 
victories  would  be  another  of  Tsardom's  holds 
upon  the  nation.  But  autocracy  failed,  for  the 
armies  of  the  Tsar  were  beaten. 

In  the  midst  of  the  war  Nicholas  died.  His 
megalomania  had  received  a  check,  his  dreams  of 
omnipotence  were  shattered  by  stern  reality,  so 
he  died.  His  deathbed  must  have  been  a  torture, 
like  that  of  the  Roman  Emperor  Tiberius.  Who 
knows  but  that  Tsar  Nicholas  I,  in  a  prophetic 
vision,  saw  the  forces  of  revolution  gathering 
strength  and  finally  triumphing  over  Tsardom, 
and  his  great-grandson,  the  second  Nicholas,  giv- 
ing up  the  struggle,  abdicating  and  being  sent  to 
Siberia  in  the  midst  of  another  war,  with  Russia 
this  time  as  an  ally  of  the  very  powers  he  was 
then  fighting  ?  Imperial  and  human  tragi-comedy ! 
On  the  threshold  of  death  this  champion  of  auto- 
cracy, this  enemy  of  liberalism  may  have  had  a 
glimpse  into  the  future  and  heard  the  sighs  and 
curses  of  his  numerous  victims,  all  of  whom  he 
had  sacrificed  to  the  Moloch  of  Tsardom.  If 
Nicholas  I  had  no  prophetic  vision,  at  least  one 
knows  that  he  would  die  of  shock  could  he  but 
rise  and  see  the  Russia  of  to-day.  If  the  dead 
are  aware  of  the  doings  of  the  living  and  can  turn 
in  their  graves,  then,  surely,  the  Tsar  Nicholas 
must  be  in  a  perpetual  whirl ! 

The  autocrat  died.  Official  Russia  mourned 
and  lamented  over  his  Imperial  grave,  but  the 
revolutionary  spirit,  the  spirit  of  revolt,  uttered 
a  sigh  of  relief  in  its  prison  house.     France  and 


126         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

England  paid  a  tribute  de  convenance,  whilst  Berlin 
and  its  Knutophiles  deplored  the  disappearance  of 
the  autocrat.     The  revolutionaries  of  Russia  drew 
new  breath  when  Alexander  II  ascended  the  throne. 
It  seemed  as  if  the  dawn  of  liberty  had  risen  on 
Russia's   horizon  and  that,   at   last,  the   long-ex- 
pected  and   hoped-for  renaissance   was   at   hand. 
The    demand   for   freedom,    for   the   abolition    of 
serfdom  and  the  introduction  of  liberal,  Western 
]  institutions    became    louder.     The    aspirations    of 
I  Russian  society  and  the  Russian  nation  found  its 
I  expression  in   Alexander  Herzen,   an   exile   living 
;  in  London  who  had  founded   The  Bell,  in  which 
I  he   published   his    political  programmes.     I    shall 
deal  with  Herzen' s  ideas  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 
Suffice  it  here  to  say  that  what  Herzen  practically 
demanded  was  the  abolition  of  serfdom,  the  censor- 
ship and  corporal  punishment. 

Alexander  II  was  one  of  the  most  liberal  minded 
members  of  the  house  of  Romanov,  but  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  even  in  his  case  his  liberal 
measures  and  reforms  were  not  so  much  the 
result  of  an  impulsive  movement  as  brought  about 
by  two  external  factors :  public  opinion  and 
popular  discontent.  Alexander  stated  his  decision 
to  introduce  reforms  into  Russia.  The  spirit  of 
revolt  was  still  too  inexperienced  to  know  that  a 
Romanov  could  not  grant  a  constitution,  he  must 
either  be  an  autocrat  or  abdicate.  Thus  every  one 
believed  that  a  new  era  had  dawned  on  Russia. 
The  Russian  opposition,  the  heirs  and  successors 
of  the  Decembrists,  the  men  who  had  sighed  and 
hoped  or  brooded  and  despaired  during  the  reign 
of  Nicholas  I,  never  dreamed  of  replying  :  Tout  on 
rien,  as  their  successors  of  1917,  grown  grey  and 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  AUTOCRACY    127 

experienced  in  suffering,  will  say.  They  greeted 
the  Emperor's  promises  with  exuberant  joy  and 
hailed  his  declaration  that  "  it  is  better  to  abolish 
serfdom  by  an  act  of  government  coming  from 
above,  than  to  wait  until  it  was  abolished  from 
below  by  the  people  themselves." 

Russian  liberals  and  revolutionaries  greeted  the 
young  monarch  bent  upon  liberal  reforms  and 
measures  with  great  enthusiasm.  Every  one  was 
confident  and  full  of  hopes  for  a  glorious  future. 
Millions  would  obtain  freedom  without  a  revolu- 
tion, without  bloodshed.  The  Tsar  himself  was 
inspired  by  the  best  and  most  liberal  intentions, 
and  decided  to  make  a  clean  sweep  of  the  past 
and  a  tabula  rasa  of  the  regime  of  Nicholas  I. 
Herzen  hailed  Alexander  II  as  a  deliverer,  and 
heaped  blessing  upon  his  Imperial  head.  He  com- 
pared him  to  Peter  the  Great,  and  exclaimed : 
"  For  the  moment  the  spirit  of  revolt  had  volun- 
tarily cut  off  its  wings  and  was  dazzled  by  the 
golden  cage  which  the  representative  of  autocracy 
was  dangling  before  its  e37^es."  ^ 

The  great  day,  February  19th,  1861,  arrived. 
On  this  historical  day  serfdom  w^as  abolished  in 
Russia  by  Imperial  decree.  Thus  millions  of 
slaves  obtained  a  semblance  of  freedom  ;  it  was 
granted  them,  not  as  an  act  of  justice,  but  as  a 
crust  thrown  to  a  beggar.  And  the  masses  were 
expected  to  hail  this  crowned  liberator  as  a  heaven- 
sent saviour  I  The  poor,  deluded  fools  did  not 
realise  that  he  was  only  restoring  to  them  their 
own  property,  their  liberty,  of  which  they  had 
been  deprived  by  his  predecessors.  They  did  not 
even   have  the   satisfaction   of  feeling   that   they 

1  The  Bell,  1858,  No,  9. 


128        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

were  the  conquerors  ;  that  they  as  victors  had 
dictated  conditions  to  a  conquered  foe  and  usurper. 
No,  it  was  an  act  of  grace  on  the  part  of  the  auto- 
crat, and  the  world  applauded  him  for  it.  Neither 
the  Russian  revolutionaries  nor  the  people  had 
any  realisation  of  the  deep  humiliation  of  that 
method  of  obtaining  their  freedom. 

Alas,  both  the  joy  and  the  hope  were  of  very 
short  duration.  It  was  but  natural  that  the 
governing  classes,  all  landed  slaveowners,  should, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  be  disinclined  to  yield  up 
such  a  lucrative  source  of  income.  The  Russian 
landed  proprietor  of  those  days  led  a  life  of  happy, 
idle  luxury,  a  perfect  dolce  far  niente.  Slaves 
worked  for  him;  his  "  souls  "  piled  up  money  that 
he  might  rush  off  to  Paris  now  and  then  and  spend 
it  freely.  The  governing  classes  could  not  and 
would  not  solve  the  question  radically.  The 
slaves  were  liberated,  men  were  set  free,  but  the 
economic  situation  was  far  from  having  been 
ameliorated.  The  agrarian  question  had  not  been 
solved  as  the  liberals,  revolutionaries  and  socialists 
had  trusted  it  would.  The  peasants  did  not  re- 
ceive the  land  they  had  been  cultivating,  for  the 
greatest  part  of  the  soil  still  remained  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  proprietors.  Moreover,  the  peasants 
did  not  receive  what  land  was  allotted  to  them 
free  of  expense  :  they  had  to  pay  heavy  rents  and 
taxes  ;  in  many  cases,  indeed,  the  taxes  came  to 
more  than  the  peasant  could  earn  by  the  cultiva- 
tion of  his  land.  Therefore,  the  liberated  slaves 
were  economically  much  worse  off  than  before. 
Hence  the  strange  phenomenon  of  men  and  women, 
nominally  free  and  their  own  masters,  sighing 
miserably  for  the  happy,  halcyon  days  of  serfdom. 


■>     '   ,  »->   '     ■'.* 


J        ,      '      J      ,      3 


128] 


Tsar  Alexander  II  Monument. 

(By  Antokolsky.) 


THE   TRIUMPH  OF  AUTOCRACY    129 

After  having  celebrated  the  feast  of  freedom, 
the  Russian  peasant  wept  for  the  flesh  pots  of 
slavery.  The  peasants  themselves  believed  that 
the  Tsar  had  decreed  that  they  should  receive  the 
land,  but  that  the  landowners  refused  to  give  it 
up.  The  Moujiks  clung  to  this  belief  for  many 
years  ;  indeed,  itrhas  only  quite  recently,  thanks  to 
the  energetic  propaganda  organised  by  the  revolu- 
tionaries, been  eradicated.  As  for  the  intellectuals 
they  immediately  understood  that  the  Govern- 
ment did  not  really  intend  to  break  with  the  past, 
and  that  Alexander  himself  could  not  belie  the 
autocratic  tendencies  of  his  father.^ 

In  a  word,  the  reforms  of  Alexander,  especially 
the  emancipation  of  serfdom,  did  not  have  the 
expected  results.  The  Tsar  had  made  an  initial 
mistake,  a  mistake  that  Tsars  and  autocrats  are 
bound  to  make  :  he  wished  to  appear  liberal  and 
yet  remain  an  autocrat.  The  same  mistake,  in 
the  opposite  sense,  is  often  made  by  apostles  of 
liberty  and  democracy  :  they  proclaim  the  prin- 
ciple of  nationality  in  the  same  breath  as  universal 
peace  ;  they  attempt  to  be  national  patriots  and 
international  socialists  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
not  seeming  to  realise  that  these  are  contradictory 
ideas. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  emancipation  of  the 
serfs  annoved  the  aristocrats  and  landowners, 
idealistically  inclined  though  these  were.  They 
were  far  from  pleased  with  the  reality,  for  it 
caused  them  to  lose  their  source  of  revenue,  whilst 
the  moujiks,  liberty-struck,  asked  for  more.  The 
peasants  had  heard  of  and  hoped  for  "freedom," 
but   in   the   simplicity   of  their   minds   they   had 

1  Cf.  Golovatshev,  p.  6. 

9 


130         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

imagined  this  freedom  to  be  something  quite 
diiierent  from  what  it  proved  to  be  in  reahty.  They 
had  fondly  imagined  that  all  the  ground  which 
they,  as  serfs,  had  cultivated  for  the  seigneurs, 
would  become  their  absolute  property,  free  of 
rates  and  taxes.  The  discontent  of  the  masses 
therefore  grew;  they  were  in  a  constant  state  of 
seething  fermentation.  The  intellectuals,  seeing 
the  discontent  and  excitement  of  the  peasants, 
imagined  that  a  peasant  revolution  was  at  hand 
which  would,  like  a  human  hurricane,  sweep  aside 
and  destroy  the  old  regime  and  pull  down  the 
bulwarks  of  autocracv. 

But  the  hopes  of  the  revolutionaries  were 
premature.  The  peasants  were  angry,  but  their 
anger  was  against  the  nobility  and  the  seigneurs, 
not  against  the  autocracy  or  Tsardom.  However, 
the  peasants,  though  dissatisfied,  resigned  them- 
selves to  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  It  was  not 
5^et  possible  for  the  intellectual  revolutionary 
element  to  enlighten  the  peasants :  firstly,  because 
the  peasants  distrusted  the  intellectuals — whom 
they  looked  upon  as  mere  seigneurs — and  also  be- 
cause their  social  and  political  consciousness  was 
but  slightly  developed  ;  and  secondly,  the  intellec- 
tuals had  not  learnt  how  to  penetrate  the  masses 
and  make  them  listen  to  them.  The  intellectuals 
themselves  were  quite  convinced  that  Russia  could 
expect  nothing  from  autocracy,  and  that  her 
people  would  have  to  use  force  to  secure  their 
liberty  or  any  true  reforms  ;  they  could  not  hope 
to  receive  them  as  gifts  from  the  Tsar. 

The  peasants,  among  them  the  Stenka  Razins 
and  Pougatshevs  had  stirred  revolt  as  long  as  they 
were  serfs,  were  not  satisfied  with  the  new  order 


THE    TRIUMPH   OF   AUTOCRACY    131 

of  things.  They  were  told  that  in  Western 
Europe  there  were  neither  taxes,  conscription  nor 
passports,  that  the  people  were  the  real  rulers,  whilst 
the  Tsars  were  subject  to  the  sovereign  will  of  the 
nation.  The  intelligent  or  educated  classes  also 
had  their  own  special  grievance.  "  Why,"  they 
asked,  "  should  the  Government  grant  liberty  to 
the  serfs  only  and  none  to  the  other  classes  of 
society  ?  Why  should  not  the  nobles  have  access 
to  the  best  posts  and  positions  in  the  Government  ; 
why  should  they  not  be  appointed  as  officials  and 
functionaries  with  good  salaries  ?  " 

But  the  Tsar,  despite  his  good  intentions,  was 
afraid  to  do  this,  to  open  the  doors  of  the  high 
official  positions  to  all  of  his  subjects.  He  had 
already  alienated  the  sympathy  and  loyalty  of 
the  seigneurs  ;  he  had  deprived  them  of  their 
"  baptized  property "  and  therefore  of  a  large 
source  of  revenue.  Birth,  and  not  merit,  conse- 
quently continued  to  be  the  open  sesame  of  lucrative 
administrative  posts.  The  tshin  was  maintained, 
bureaucracy  flourished  and.  its  privileges  were  in- 
creased. The  students  of  the  middle  classes,  sons 
of  merchants  and  clergymen,  when  their  studies 
were  finished,  found  all  administrative  posts  closed 
to  them,  for  there  the  nobilitv  held  s\vav. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  smaller  landowners  were 
dissatisfied  because,  unable  any  longer  to  have  their 
land  cultivated  by  serfs,  they  were  obliged  to 
employ  hired  labour,  and  therefore  soon  saw 
themselves  on  the  brink  of  ruin.  They  sold  their 
land  and  then  sought  State  employment,  and  the 
Government  favoured  them.  Yet  there  was  not 
room  for  all  of  them,  so  the  unluckv  ones  swelled 
the  ranks  of  the  discontented. 


132        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

We  have  seen  how  the  spirit  of  revolt  worked 
in  the  Orthodox  Church ;  a  great  number  of  the 
revohitionaries  were  drawn  from  the  sons  of  the 
priests,  veritable  pariahs  of  Russian  society.  It 
had  long  been  the  custom  that  the  sons  of  the 
clergy  should  enter  the  priesthood,  but,  unfortu- 
nately, the  sons  were  more  plentiful  than  the  posts, 
with  the  result  that  a  steadily  increasing  clerical 
proletariat  class  was  formed.  They  were  subject  to 
many  restrictions,  since  they  were  not  nobles  but 
merely  the  sons  of  priests.  All  the  liberal  profes- 
sions were  closed  to  them,  and  they  could  only 
aspire  to  the  lower  rungs  of  the  administrative 
ladder.  It  was  but  natural  for  these  malcontents 
to  swell  the  ranks  of  the  revolutionaries  and  foster 
the  spirit  of  revolt. 

Another  class,  or  rather,  a  nationality,  furnished 
many  recruits  to  the  revolutionary  standard. 
They  were  the  natural  apostles  of  revolt  against 
Tsardom  and  autocracy.  They  knew  what  the 
French  Revolution  had  done  for  their  co-religionists. 
But  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Jews  were  not 
alone  in  being  persecuted  for  their  religious  opinions. 
It  is  erroneous  to  speak  of  other  causes  ;  all  the 
other  trumped-up  causes  were  merely  pretexts  for 
persecution.  Persecution  is  always  the  result  of 
religious  fanaticism,  whatever  other  reason  may 
be  put  forward.  Alexander,  however,  was  more 
tolerant  towards  sectarians  than  to  the  Jews. 
He  considered  himself  the  head  of  the  Greek 
Orthodox  Faith,  and  endeavoured  to  increase  its 
prestige  as  distinguished  from  the  Church  officials. 
The  Government  persistently  endeavoured  to 
force  the  Catholics  to  join  the  Greek  Orthodox 
Church ;  many  of  the  Catholic  churches  were  closed 


THE  TRIUMPH  OF  AUTOCRACY    133 

and  the  Catholics  forbidden  to  correspond  with 
Rome. 

The  army  also  was  a  hotbed  of  revolt.  It  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  conscription,  as  it  then 
existed  in  Russia,  was  not  conscription  of  free 
citizens  gathered  to  defend  their  country  against 
an  invader,  but  of  the  slaves  of  autocracy.  Men 
were  ruthlessly  torn  from  their  homes  and  families 
and  sent  out  to  fight,  not  pro  aris  et  focis,  but  in 
the  interests  of  Tsardom,  of  Imperialistic  plans 
and  tendencies.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  naturally 
fostered  the  spirit  of  revolt  in  the  hearts  of  the 
Russian  soldiers,  who,  though  clad  in  the  military 
uniform,  were  yet  Slavs.  Many  of  the  soldiers 
were  former  political  offenders  who  had  been  in- 
corporated, by  force,  into  the  army.  The  natural 
result  was  that  these  "  criminals  "  did  not  let  any 
opportunity  slip  of  preaching  and  fostering  the 
spirit  of  revolt  among  their  comrades.  However, 
it  was  not  only  the  soldiers,  corporals,  sergeants 
and  sub-officers  who  had  grievances,  for,  since  it 
was  the  custom  for  all  the  higher  army  posts  to 
be  given  to  the  noble  by  birth,  men  of  merit  and 
distinction  were  passed  over.  Ambitious  soldiers 
w^io  had  distinguished  themselves  on  the  battle- 
field were  excluded  from  the  officer  ranks  ;  these 
were  filled  by  young  nobles  fresh  from  the  military 
school.  These  military  malcontents  furnished  a 
large  contingent  of  the  revolutionaries. 

Thus,  discontent  was  increasing  in  various 
groups,  social,  national  and  religious.  The  spirit 
of  revolt  was  again  raising  its  wings.  The  forces 
of  revolution  were  gathering,  the  doom  of  Tsardom 
was  approaching,  the  invisible  hand  was  already 
writing  its  "  Mene,  mene,  tckel  upharsin "  upon 


134         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  wall.  But  though  the  forces  were  accumulat- 
ing in  the  various  strata  of  Russian  society,  they 
were  scattered  and  lacked  unity,  organisation, 
cohesion.  Discontent  and  revolt  were  spreading 
slowly  but  surely,  yet,  since  the  interests  of  the 
various  groups  were  so  diverse,  centralisation  was 
difficult  of  attainment.  There  were  wide  gulfs 
between  the  groups,  many  of  whom  were  jealous 
of  the  others  ;  it  has  taken  decades  to  make  these 
understand  and  trust  one  another.  When  all  the 
groups  realised  that  however  different  their  in- 
terests might  be,  they  had  one  object  in  common — 
the  abolition  of  Tsardom  and  autocracy — they 
were  able  to  reach  their  full  power.  It  became 
the  work  of  the  Russian  intellectuals,  philosophers 
and  sociologists  to  teach  this  truth,  to  show  the 
various  groups  that  before  a  new  Russian  State 
could  be  built  upon  the  ruins  of  Tsardom,  the 
latter  would  have  to  be  torn  down,  and,  to  do 
that,  the  revolutionary  forces  would  have  to  con- 
centrate ;  all  the  blind  forces  would  have  to  run 
the  one  way  and  that  the  right  way.  Thus  these 
Russian  philosophers  and  sociologists  gave  articu- 
late voice  to  what  the  masses  were  only  vaguely 
and  inarticulately  feeling. 


CHAPTER    VII 

LITTERATEURS,    PHILOSOPHERS    AND 

SOCIOLOGISTS 

It  has  sometimes  been  asserted  that  the  French 
philosophers  of  the  eighteenth  century  contributed 
but  little  to  the  great  French  upheaval ;  that 
even  if  Rousseau  had  never  written,  the  doctrine 
of  popular  sovereignty  would,  in  any  case,  have 
asserted  itself  in  France  sooner  or  later.  The 
spirit  of  restlessness  and  discontent  had  long  been 
prevalent  in  France.  When  Lord  Chesterfield 
visited  the  country  in  1753,  he  said  that  the  sjmip- 
toms  indicative  of  great  changes  in  government 
were  then  present.  On  this  account  it  is  argued 
that  all  that  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  Condorcet,  Mably, 
Morelli  and  others  did  w^as  to  give  voice  and  ex- 
pression to  latent  feelings.  It  would  probably  be 
truer  to  say  that  the  French  philosophers  sowed 
the  seed  of  revolution  by  scattering  new  ideas  on 
soil  prepared  to  receive  them.  The  same  service 
has  been  rendered  Russia  by  her  philosophers. 
Russia — real  Russia,  not  the  Russia  of  the 
Romanovs — has  long  been  vaguely  craving  for 
reform ;  her  philosophers  have  taught  her  how 
to  give  more  or  less  definite  shape  to  the  vague 
aspirations  already  in  the  hearts  of  the  multitude. 
During  the  reign  of  Catherine  II  the  political, 

135 


136        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

social,  and  philosophical  ideas  of  the  eighteenth 
century  gained  numerous  adherents  in  Russia. 
Few,  however,  were  the  men  capable  of  really 
assimilating  the  theories  of  Voltaire  and  the 
Encyclopaedists.  The  influence  of  Freemasonry 
was  more  lasting.  Basing  itself  upon  Christianity 
instead  of  breaking  with  it,  Russian  Freemasonry 
aimed  not  so  much  at  political  and  social  reforms 
as  at  the  perfection  of  the  individual.  Yet, 
indirectly,  it  exercised  a  certain  influence  upon 
the  political  and  social  ideals  of  the  day.  Fighting 
as  it  did  against  national  and  religious  fanaticism, 
it  necessarily  had  to  point  out  existing  abuses, 
and  to  condemn  them.  Its  work  was  consequently 
critical,  as  well  as  constructive.  While  in  Ger- 
many Freemasonry  was  of  a  mystical  character,  in 
Russia  it  became  an  ethical  and  organising  move- 
ment ;  it  grouped  together  men  of  thought  and 
independent  judgment  and  enabled  them  to  ex- 
ercise an  influence  upon  the  masses. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  figures  among  the 
masonic  societies  in  Russia  under  Catherine  II  was 
Novikov.  In  his  paper,  the  TJtrenyi  Sviet,  he  not 
only  advocated  a  high  ethical  ideal,  but  also 
carried  on  a  vigorous  polemic  against  Catherine's 
foreign  policy,  and  the  warfare  it  devolved.  He 
said  that  war,  except  for  defence,  should  be  alto- 
gether abhorred.  For  some  time  Catherine — her- 
self a  disciple  of  Voltaire  and  a  friend  of  Diderot 
— allowed  Novikov  to  continue  his  philanthropic 
and  ethical  Christian  work,  but  the  outbreak  of 
the  French  Revolution  altered  her  views.  She 
then  saw  in  every  manifestation  of  independent 
social  thought  a  political  agitation.  Consequently, 
the    masonic    lodges    were    closed    and    Novikov 


LITTERATEURS  AND    PHILOSOPHERS    137 

himself,  in  spite  of  his  advanced  age,  was  thrown 
into  the  dungeons  of  Schhisselburg.  His  work 
may  be  regarded  as  the  first  sprouting  of  inde- 
pendent thought  in  Russia,  the  first  expression  of 
a  craving  for  freedom.  It  was  hazy,  vague  and 
mainly  humanitarian  and  ethical,  for  the  phil- 
osopher never  dared  to  include  in  his  programme 
the  reorganisation  of  society  and  of  the  State. 
Nevertheless  it  was  a  subversive  movement,  as  it 
tended  to  create  an  independent  public  opinion 
in  Russia,  and  thus  to  provide  the  first  essential 
requisite  for  any  social  upheaval. 

Towards  the  end  of  Catherine's  reign,  timid 
voices  demanding  social  reforms  began  to  be 
heard.  Russian  intellectuals  who  had  come  under 
the  influence  of  Rousseau's  doctrine  that  all  men 
are  born  equal,  were  not  content  with  the  spectacle 
of  the  few  living  in  luxury  whilst  the  many  were 
starving.  One  of  the  most  noteworthy  of  the  many 
precursors  of  revolutionary  thought  in  Russia  at 
this  period  was  Radishtshev,  the  author  of  A 
Journey  from  Moscow  to  St.  Petersburg,  an  avowed 
and  famous  imitation  of  Sterne's  Sentimental 
Journey.  Radishtshev  did  not  dare  to  demand 
political  changes,  though  he  was  definitely  an 
opponent  of  absolutism.  He  specially  urged  the 
need  for  agrarian  reforms.  He  created  no  organisa- 
tion and  no  party  ;  he  only  gave  expression  to  the 
ever-growing  unrest  of  the  Russian  intellectuals 
who  had  absorbed  the  philosophical,  political  and 
social  doctrines  of  Western  Europe.  He  was 
finally  arrested,  tried  and  condemned  to  death  ; 
but  Catherine,  cahoiine  that  she  was,  showed  her- 
self magnanimous,  and  commuted  his  sentence  to 
that  of  exile  to  Siberia  for  ten  years.     Paul  I  re- 


138         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

called  the  exile,  as  he  did  many  others  whom  his 
mother  had  punished,  and  Alexander  I  invited  him 
to  take  part  in  a  legislative  commission.  But 
Radishtshev  found  that  his  radical  ideas  were  too 
advanced  for  the  Russia  of  his  day  ;  discouraged 
and  weary  of  life,  he  committed  suicide  in  Sep- 
tember 1802. 

How  many  have  been  swallowed  up  by  the 
I  Moloch  autocracy  and  cut  off  in  the  prime  of  life  ! 
How  many  a  noble  existence  has  been  crushed 
in  those  living  tombs  where  Russian  autocracy 
constantly  flung  her  best  and  noblest  citizens, 
whose  only  crime  may  be  summed  up  in  one  word 
— Thought !  Russia's  poets  and  prophets,  Russia's 
thinkers  and  philosophers,  Russia's  Bakunins, 
Herzens  and  Kropotkins  either  suffered  this  fate, 
or  were  in  constant  danger  of  it  overtaking  them. 
The  v/ords,  "  Woe  unto  the  nations  who  stone 
prophets  !  "  may  rightly  be  applied  in  modern 
times  to  Russia  of  the  Tsars.  The  fate  of  Radisht- 
shev calls  to  our  mind  the  names  of  many  Russian 
authors,  poets  and  thinkers  who  perished  whilst 
the  noble  family  of  Romanov  presided  over  the 
destinies  of  the  Russian  nation.  If  not  exactly 
stoned,  the  Russian  poets  and  authors — the  pro- 
phets of  modern  times — met  with  suffering  and 
premature  death.  They  were  either  hanged  or 
sent  to  Siberia  among  the  lowest  and  most  depraved 
criminals. 

"  The  history  of  Russian  thinkers,"  Alexander 
Herzen  once  exclaimed,  "  is  a  long  list  of  martyrs 
1  and  a  register  of  convicts."     In  Russia  a  terrible 
j  destiny  awaited  those  who  dared  to  step  beyond 
j  the  line  traced  by  the  Government,  or  who  ven- 
tured to  look  over  the  wall  erected  by  Imperial 


LITTERATEURS   AND    PHILOSOPHERS   139 

Ukase.  Even  in  the  most  civilised  countries  of 
Western  Europe,  ever  and  anon  a  cross-current 
of  reaction  has  traversed  the  stream  of  intellectual 
evolution ;  narrow-minded  zealots,  hypocritical 
bigots,  false  prophets  and  literary  Gibeonites, 
gossiping  old  women  arrayed  in  the  mantles  of 
philosophers,  have  done  their  best  to  put  fetters 
on  the  independent  thought  of  man,  to  nip  free 
intellectual  development  in  the  very  bud,  and 
crush  it  under  the  iron  heel  of  tradition  and 
authority. 

But  in  Western  Europe  these  reactionary  ten- 
dencies are,  and  have  been,  mere  temporary  aberra- 
tions ;  it  was  not  so  in  Russia.  There,  the  thinkers, 
whose  lives  were  spared  by  the  paternal  Imperial 
Government  of  the  Tsars,  died  in  the  zenith  of 
their  youth  before  they  had  time  fully  to  develop  ; 
they  withered  like  blossoms  hurrying  to  quit  life 
before  they  could  bear  fruit.  Their  number  was 
legion,  but  I  shall  mention  at  least  a  few  of  those 
Russian  authors  whose  glorious  talent  and  melan- 
choly fate  add  to  the  ignominy  of  Tsardom's 
history. 

Ryleev  (1795-1826),  a  poet  of  considerable 
talent,  was  hanged  with  four  others  in  1826  by 
order  of  Tsar  Nicholas  I. 

Prince  Odoievsky  (1802-89),  whose  poems  are 
full  of  poignancy  and  pathos,  was  sent  to  Siberia, 
where  he  had  to  live  as  an  ordinarv  soldier.  He 
was  not  the  only  Russian  author  forced  to  serve  in 
the  army  as  a  punishment  for  daring  to  speak 
the  truth  ;  indeed,  the  Tsar  and  his  Government 
seemed  to  look  upon  the  army  as  a  sort  of  convict 
prison. 

Griboyedov  (1794-1829),  who  is  Russia's  Beau- 


140         THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

marchais  and  the  author  of  the  comedy  Gore  ot 
Oumah,  or  Too  much  Intelligence  comes  to  Grief, 
met  with  so  many  obstacles  in  his  hterary  career 
and  was  so  disgusted  with  the  intellectual  and 
moral  state  of  the  Russia  of  his  day  that  suicide 
seemed  to  him  the  only  way  out ;  he  finally  went 
to  Persia,  where  he  was  murdered. 

The  promising  poet  and  philosopher  Vene- 
vitinov  (1805-27)  died  in  his  twenty-third  year,  a 
victim  of  social  circumstances. 

The  fiery  poet,  Alexander  Polezhaev  (1810-38) 
attracted  the  attention  of  Nicholas  I  by  his 
satirical  poem  Sashha,  which  was  secretly  circu- 
lated among  his  fellow  students.  The  poet  was 
therefore  expelled  from  the  university  and  con- 
demned to  serve  as  a  private  in  a  Caucasian 
regiment.  The  soldier-poet  sought  oblivion  of  his 
misery  in  drink,  and  finally  died  in  a  military 
hospital,  aged  twenty-eight.  The  manner  in 
which  Polezhaev  was  treated  by  the  Tsar  was  very 
characteristic  of  the  Romanovs,  who  committed  all 
their  crimes  against  man's  freedom  in  a  spirit  of 
clemency. 

Nicholas  I  ordered  Polezhaev  to  appear  before 
him  and  to  read  the  offending  poem  aloud.  The 
Tsar  then  kissed  the  student  on  the  forehead  as  an 
appreciation  of  his  talent,  and  then  ordered  that 
he  should  enlist  in  a  regiment.  This  was  very 
evidently  done  with  the  view  of  breaking  the 
independent  spirit  of  the  poet,  of  crushing  the 
rising  genius  by  cutting  his  wings.  But  this  cruel 
joke  was  not  an  exception  on  the  part  of  the  late 
Imperial  Government  of  Russia. 

In  1836,  Tshaadaev,  the  friend  of  Schelling  and 
the  author  of  L'Apologie  d'un  Fou,  published  a 


LITTERATEURS   AND    PHILOSOPHERS   141 

letter  in  French  in  which,  Prometheus-Hke,  he  cast 
his  curse  into  the  face  of  Russia.  He  told  her 
in  clear  and  precise  words  that  her  past  was 
useless,  her  present  superfluous  and  her  future 
hopeless.  Tshaadaev's  letter  was  a  trumpet- 
call  by  which  he  hoped  to  rouse  Russia  from 
her  sleep  of  inertia.  But  his  voice  was  soon 
silenced.  The  Government  did  not  punish  him, 
but — by  order  of  the  Tsar — Tshaadaev  was  declared 
mad. 

Bestuzhev-Marlinsky  (1795-1837),  the  founder 
of  "  Romantic  Criticism "  in  Russia,  was  sent 
to  the  mines  for  a  few  years  and  died  in  the 
Caucasus. 

Byelinsky  (1810-48),  the  Russian  Lessing  and 
famous  literary  critic,  who  exercised  an  immense 
influence  upon  Russian  literature,  died  of  priva- 
tion in  his  thirtv-eiffhth  vear.  When  the  Govern- 
ment  of  the  Tsars  did  not  openly  condemn  the 
talented  men  to  a  life  of  misery  in  the  mines  or 
army,  or  to  degradation  and  death,  it  put  so  many 
obstacles  in  their  way  that  they  were  driven  to 
despair,  and  died  miserably  while  still  in  the  flush 
of  youth,  victims  of  oppression,  crushed  under  the 
iron  heel  of  tyranny. 

The  famous  Russian  novelist  Dostoievsky,  the 
eminent  psychologist  who,  with  critical  scalpel  in 
hand,  analysed  the  Russian  soul  and  laid  bare  its 
most  hidden  cells,  was  sent  to  Siberia  for  four 
years  ;  there  he  lived  among  thieves  and  mur- 
derers. Later  he  served  as  a  private  in  a  Siberian 
regiment.  And  how  many  were  there  who  were 
crushed  before  they  really  had  time  to  raise  their 
voices  ?  Few  had  sufficient  strength  of  character 
to  hide  their  emotions   and  the  burning    Are  of 


142         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

enthusiasm  in  the  innermost  depths  of  their  soul 
without  being  consumed  by  their  inward  flame. 
Few,  indeed,  were  those  who,  with  fetters  on  hands 
and  feet,  succeeded  in  keeping  their  heads  erect 
and  their  spirits  independent. 

The  great  Russian  poet  Pushkin,  liberty-thirsting 
and  revolutionary,  was  exiled  to  the  Caucasus. 
He  returned  home,  but  very  shortly  had  to  choose 
between  a  second  term  of  exile  or  the  title  and 
uniform  of  Imperial  Chamberlain.  He  chose  the 
latter. 

If  Tolstoi  was  spared,  it  was  not  because  the 
government  of  the  Tsars  was  afraid  of  European 
opinion  and  did  not  dare  to  touch  him,  but  rather 
because  the  author  of  Resurrection  was  in  reality 
quite  harmless.  Indeed,  the  Government,  on  the 
contrary,  availed  itself  of  his  doctrine  of  passive 
resistance,  of  castration  of  the  will  and  submis- 
sion, for  its  own  purposes. 

Russian  literature,  therefore,  under  the  rule  of 
the  Tsars  had  a  hard  struggle.  During  the  first 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century  it  was  principally 
the  product  of  the  middle  nobility.  It  bore  the 
impress  of  and  reflected  the  ideas  and  conceptions 
of  this  social  group.  It  supported  the  tendencies 
and  ideas  of  monarchy,  even  of  autocracy.  Yet 
side  by  side  with  this  officially  legal  literature, 
there  were  small  intellectual  groups  that  inclined 
towards  broader  and  wider  conceptions  of  life. 
These  intellectuals  were  able  to  rise  above  class 
and  group  influence  and  to  deal  with  the  interests 
of  society  in  general,  thus  emancipating  them- 
selves from  narrow  traditionalism  and  egoism. 
These  were  the  men  who,  with  the  power  of  true 
seers,  grasped  the  idea  of  evolution  and  historical 


LITTERATEURS   AND    PHILOSOPHERS    143 

development  and  foresaw  the  coming  changes,  so 
necessary  and  yet  so  fatal.  ^ 

The  liberal  tendencies  which  were  promulgated 
in  Russian  literature  during  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century  were  not  unique  phenomena 
in  the  history  of  Russia's  development.  They 
were  links  in  a  long  chain.  The  seeds  that  had 
been  sown  continued  to  blossom  and  bear  fruit. 
Politically,  1825  proved  a  tragic  turning-point, 
but  though  the  autocratic  government  of  Nicholas 
made  outward  liberal  manifestations  almost  im- 
possible, the  work  of  thought  never  stopped  its 
slow  evolution.  New  ideals  and  ideas  took  hold 
of  and  charmed  Russian  poets  and  philosophers. 
In  the  place  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  which 
during  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
had  captured  the  minds  of  Russian  thinkers,  new 
currents  of  thought  swept  in  and  reflected  them- 
selves in  scientific  and  philosophical  productions. 

Thus,  in  spite  of  the  strict  censorship,  a  healthy 
intellectual  life  flourished  in  Russia  during  the 
reign  of  Nicholas  I.  In  the  history  of  Russian 
belles-lettres,  it  was  a  period  of  glorious  blossoming  : 
Pushkin,  Gogol,  Lermontov  and  others  wrote  their 
masterpieces  in  those  days.  They  prepared  the 
spiritual  atmosphere,  the  different  currents  of 
thought  and  aesthetic  tendencies  upon  which  the 
new  social  and  political  ideals  and  ideas  were 
founded.  They  formed  the  stimulus  for  all  future 
movements,  for  all  the  great  events  which  have 
culminated  in  the  great  upheaval  of  to-day. 

Autocracy  could  muzzle  the  press,  but  it  could 
not   control  thought.     Russian   intellectuals   con- 

^  Cf.  M.  N.  Pokrovsky,  Russian  History  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  vol.  ii,  pp.  379-80. 


144        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tinued  to  think  that  which  they  were  not  permitted 
to  say  aloud,  or  to  write  openly.  They  accumu- 
lated ideas  and  spread  them  slowly  and  persistently. 
Though  some  yielded  to  the  despair  to  which 
Lermontov  gave  expression,  others  clothed  their 
thoughts  in  criticism  or  satire,  a  form  of  literature 
which  oppression  always  fosters  and  develops. 
As  they  were  not  allowed  to  write  criticisms  of  the 
Government  or  directly  to  promulgate  liberal 
ideas,  they  wrote  novels  and  comedies  :  Gogol, 
his  Revisor  and  Dead  Souls,  and  Griboyedov,  his 
Gore  ot  Oumah,  in  which  officialdom  in  Russia  was 
criticised  and  ridiculed.  The  press  also,  muzzled 
though  it  was,  found  means  to  convey  its  criticisms 
between  the  lines.  The  Russians,  in  fact,  developed 
to  perfection  the  fine  art — hitherto  unknown  in 
Western  Europe — of  dodging  the  censor ! 

Meanwhile  Hegel's  philosophy  had  made  its 
appearance  in  Russia  and  found  numerous  fol- 
lowers. Officially,  the  Hegelian  system  was  con- 
sidered to  be  a  conservative  doctrine,  therefore  the 
Russian  Government  put  no  embargo  upon  it. 
Thus,  in  the  place  of  the  clear,  lucid,  humanitarian, 
revolutionary  doctrines  of  the  French  philosophers, 
came  the  abstract,  heavy,  nebulous  German 
metaphysics.  Russian  society,  not  permitted  to 
grapple  directly  with  political  problems,  as  the 
Encyclopaedists  had  done,  adopted  the  language 
of  the  abstract  borrowed  from  German  philosophy. 
The  influence  of  German  philosophy  upon  Russia 
has  been  most  pernicious,  by  encouraging  abstract 
reasoning  and  theorising  in  place  of  practical 
politics.  But,  temporarily,  the  discussion  of  Ger- 
man metaphysics  had  its  advantages,  for  it  enabled 
Russian  thinkers  to  speak  in  philosophical  terms 


»•     • 


t  >•  »  »  »  » 


,5        ,      J         »• 


H.    LOPATIN. 


Michael  Bakunin, 


*        ^ 


Social  Democrats  in  the  First  Duma. 


144] 


LITTERATEURS   AND    PHILOSOPHERS    145 

not  too  easily  comprehended  of  the  censors  of 
Nicholas  I.  Utopian  socialism,  too,  that  looked 
for  the  liberation  of  humanity,  not  to  a  revolution 
but  to  a  moral  and  spiritual  resurrection,  slipped 
over  the  frontier  vdthout  being  suspected  by  the 
Tsar's  censors. 

Thus,  Russian  philosophers  were  able  to  open  to 
Russian  readers  a  v/hole  Avorld  of  new  ideas,  and 
to  discuss,  in  carefully  veiled  language,  the  bases 
of  religion  and  authority,  and  even  Tsardom  itself. 
Groups  were  formed  in  various  cities  to  discuss 
social  and  political  questions.  Aksakov,  Khom- 
yakov,  Bakunin,  Herzen  and  Ogarev  met  at  the 
house  of  Stankevitsh.  It  was  in  this  atmosphere 
that  the  seed  sown  by  the  Decembrists  took  root 
and  proved  itself  stronger  than  brute  force. 

Among  the  writers  who  gave  most  vigorous  ex- 
pression to  these  ideas  was  Alexander  Herzen, 
who  has  justly  been  called  the  Russian  Voltaire. 
No  one  could  write  the  history  of  the  French 
Revolution  without  referring  to  Rousseau,  Vol- 
taire or  Montesquieu,  although  they  did  not  take 
a  direct  and  active  part  in  the  great  upheaval  of 
1789.  Just  as  little  could  the  name  of  Alexander 
Herzen  and  his  activity  be  overlooked  when  the 
movement  of  Russian  liberation  from  the  yoke 
of  autocracy  is  discussed.  Yet  Herzen  was  not  a 
revolutionary  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word, 
though  he  was  one  of  the  prominent  pioneers  and 
forerunners  of  the  Russian  Revolution.  Herzen' s 
talent  was  too  vast  to  be  satisfied  with  the  limited 
field  of  politics  ;  literature — a  much  greater  do- 
main— attracted  him,  and  it  was  in  her  realm  that 
he  laboured  and  developed  his  genius  and  activity. 

Alexander   Herzen   was   born   on   March   25th, 

10 


146        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

1812,  at  Moscow,  shortly  before  the  city  was  invaded 
by  Napoleon.  At  Stuttgart,  his  father  had  fallen 
in  love  with  a  young  lady,  Louise  Haag,  who,  ac- 
cording to  some,  was  of  Jewish  extraction.  He 
married  her,  but  never  legalised  his  marriage. 
Alexander  Herzen  was  the  child  of  this  love  union. 
His  father's  name  was  Ivan  Alex  eye  vitsh  Jakovlev, 
but  he  gave  his  son  the  surname  of  Herzen,  "  for," 
he  said,  "he  is  the  child  of  my  heart."  ^ 

Herzen  studied  at  the  University  of  Moscow, 
together  with  his  cousin  Ogarev,  who  became  his 
most  intimate  friend  and  companion.  In  1834 
Herzen  was  exiled  to  Perm,  on  the  outskirts  of 
Siberia,  by  order  of  Nicholas  I,  whose  great-grand- 
son, Nicholas  II,  has  but  recently  travelled  the 
same  road  by  order  of  the  Provisional  Government ! 
In  1840  Herzen  came  back  to  Petrograd,  but  was 
again  exiled,  this  time  to  Novgorod.  He  returned 
to  Moscow  in  1842.  But  a  strange  change  had 
taken  place  among  his  old  friends ;  their  former  en- 
thusiasm and  revolutionary  ardour  had  cooled 
down,  and  many  who  had  been  iconoclastic  and 
subversive  in  theory,  paused  and  hesitated  when 
they  were  faced  with  hard,  stern  reality  and  com- 
pelled to  carry  into  practice  what  they  had  so 
lightly  accepted  in  theory.  After  the  death  of  his 
father  in  1847,  Herzen  obtained  permission  to 
leave  Russia,  to  which  he  never  returned.  The 
dawn  of  approaching  revolution  was  tinting  with 
orient  hues  the  sombre  sky  of  conservative  and 
dynastic  Europe.  Liberalism  was  knocking  at  the 
doors  of  the  old  feudal  castles  of  Mediaevalism. 
Herzen  was  in  Rome  in  1847-48,  and  in  France  in 
1848-50.     In  Paris  he  became  the  friend  of  the 

*  Cf.  Alexander  Herzen,  Erinnerungcn,  Berlin,  1907,  p.  iii. 


LITTERATEURS    AND    PHILOSOPHERS    147 

most  advanced  Republicans,  and  especially  of 
Proudhon,  to  whose  paper,  La  Voix  du  Peuple, 
he  contributed.  In  view  of  recent  events  it  is 
interesting  to  note  Herzen's  description  of  his 
meeting  with  Mazzini  (Herzen's  Memoirs). 

"  Ledru-Rollin,"  said  Mazzini,  "  is  the  most 
amiable  man  in  the  world,  but  Frenchman 
'  jusqu'au  bout  des  ongles  '  ;  he  is  firmly  convinced 
that  Europe  cannot  make  any  steps  forward 
without  a  Revolution  in  France  !  Le  peuple 
initiateur!  But  where  do  we  see  initiative  at  pre- 
sent in  France  ?  The  ideas  which  have  moved 
France  have  come  from  Italy  and  England.  You 
will  see,  Italy  will  begin  the  era  of  revolution. 
What  do  you  think  ?  " 

"  I  must  confess  I  do  not  believe  it.'* 

"  Perhaps  the  Slavonic  world  ?  "  said  Mazzini 
smiling. 

"  I  did  not  say  that,  but  I  think  it  probable 
that  no  revolution  will  succeed  in  Europe,  so  long 
as  France  remains  in  a  state  of  torpor.'* 

""  France  is  asleep,'*  replied  Mazzini,  "  and  we 
are  going  to  wake  her  up." 

In  London  Herzen  decided  to  consecrate  his 
time,  energy  and  fortune  to  the  work  of  acquainting 
Europe  with  Russian  despotism  and  the  terrible 
state  of  serfdom  that  reigned  there,  as  well  as  to 
endeavour  to  wake  up  Russia  herself  to  her  possi- 
bilities. He  published  The  Polar  Star  and  The 
Bell  (Kolokol),  which  penetrated  into  Russia,  in 
spite  of  the  censor,  and  was  read  at  the  Court  of 
Petrograd  and  even  by  Tsar  Alexander  II.  In 
1861,  Bakunin,  who  had  escaped  from  Siberia, 
arrived  in  London  and  soon  gained  a  preponderat- 
ing influence  over  Herzen  and  Ogarev.     He  per- 


148         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

suaded  them  to  support  the  PoHsh  Insurrection,  a 
step  that  Herzen  later  regretted  deeply,  as  the 
Polish  revolt  found  but  little  sympathy  among  the 
democratic  circles  in  Russia,  and  consequently 
The  Bell  lost  many  of  its  regular  Russian  readers. 

In  1864  Herzen  and  Ogarev  went  to  Geneva,  and 
in  1869  The  Bell  ceased  publication.  Herzen 
then  settled  in  Paris,  where  he  died  in  1870. 
Herzen' s  most  important  work  is  his  Memoirs. 
which  appeared  in  an  English  translation,  under 
the  title  of  My  Exile,  in  1855.  The  Memoirs  have 
been  called  "  a  drama  of  a  great  moral  personality," 
"  of  a  reformer  and  a  revolutionary  who  suflered 
shipwreck  on  the  shoals  of  this  world ;  the 
tragedy  of  an  idea  yearning  for  realisation."  His 
Memoirs  show  the  life's  battle  of  a  politician  who 
was  anxious  to  shape  all  human  existence  after 
certain  ethical  models,  and  whom  the  resistance  of 
the  stupid  world  drove  back  into  the  solitude  of 
his  ideals,  to  the  Pisgah  heights  of  thought  where 
he  could  cool  his  burning  brow,  to  the  lifeless 
silence  of  his  solitary  chamber. 

In  the  realm  of  pure  philosophy  Herzen  endea- 
voured to  reconcile  and  harmonise  the  two  con- 
flicting principles  of  social  life  :  individual  liberty 
and  collective  action.^  This  problem,  he  con- 
tended, cannot  be  settled  by  fixed  laws.  It  has 
to  be  worked  out  separately  and  distinctly  in  each 
period  of  time,  with  variations  for  each  country. 

His  political  ideal  was  a  federal  republic  for  the 
Slavonic  nations  of  Russia ;  Poland  to  be  inde- 
pendent. He  was  in  favour  of  the  commimal 
system  of  peasant  holdings,  and  argued  that  this 
svstem  would  make  it  easier  to  introduce  the  new 
Vom  Anderen  Ufer,  vol.  y,  pp.  166-241. 


LITTERATEURS    AND   PHILOSOPHERS    149 

social  order  and  save  Russia  from  the  domination 
of  capital  and  the  bourgeoisie.  Indeed,  Herzen,  \ 
without  being  a  Slavophil,  saw  in  Russia  a  better  i 
prospect  for  a  social  revolution  than  in  old  Europe,  i 
because  in  his  judgment  the  Russian  was  less  a  I 
slave  of  the  past.  The  rest  of  Europe  has  passed  / 
through  so  many  revolutions  that  the  individual 
cannot  take  a  step  without  stumbling  upon  re- 
miniscences of  the  past  which  crush  the  spirit  of 
progress,  whereas  in  Russia  the  individual  has 
no  past  to  forget. 

Herzen  understood  the  psychology  of  his  nation 
better  than  any  one.  The  Russians  are  absolute 
in  good  as  in  evil,  in  affirmation  of  their  rights  as 
in  their  passive  obedience.  Liberal  politics  appear 
to  the  Russians  a  mere  mockery  of  the  real  idea 
of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  and  of  the  rule 
of  democracy.  They  know  autocracy  or  demo- 
cracy, but  no  middle  course,  no  compromise.  A 
new  label  on  the  old  bottle  would  never  satisfv 
them.  A  monarchic  protestantism,  called  a 
constitutional  monarchy,  would  never  appeal  to 
the  soul  of  Russia.  Yet  Herzen  was  not  an  oppo- 
nent of  the  State  in  the  sense  of  the  anarchic  ideal 
which  demands  the  complete  abolition  of  the 
State  principle.  He  was  in  favour  of  a  "  confra- 
ternity of  nations  "  rather  than  a  "  confraternity 
of  men  !  "  The  State,  however,  had  no  claim  to 
existence  per  se ;  it  was  merely  an  organising 
function  of  the  life  of  the  people,  and  therefore  was 
bound  to  adapt  itself  to  all  the  developments  and 
changes  of  the  popular  life.  The  State  was  the 
servant  of  the  people,  not  its  master,  as  is  the 
conception  of  the  Western  socialists. 

The  manifesto  of  Alexander  II  announcing  the 


150         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

liberation  of  the  serfs  confirmed  Herzen's  hopes 
for  Russia's  future,  and  his  optimism  was  at  first 
shared  by  the  famous  economist  and  critic,  Tsherny- 
shevski.     As  a  philosopher,   Tshernyshevski  was, 
to    a    certain   extent,   a   follower   of    Feuerbach's 
materialistic  philosophy,  whilst  his  ideas  upon  the 
future  state  of  society  were  based  upon  the  doc- 
trines  of  St.   Simon   and  Fourier.     Like  Herzen, 
Tshernyshevski    attributed    much    importance    to 
the  system  of  communal  property.     This  system, 
he    said,    was    already   known   to   the    people    in 
1  Russia,  and  therefore  they  were  prepared  for  the 
I  realisation  of  the  socialist  regime,  whilst  in  Europe 
.  the  system  of  individual  property  would  be  in  the 
<  way.     Russia  could  either  at  once  introduce  pure 
■  collectivism,  or,    at   least,  shorten   the   period   of 
private    property    considerably.      Tshernyshevski 
was  of  the  opinion  that  the  organised  masses  were 
entitled  to  exercise  a  democratic  control  over  the 
Government,  but,  considering  the  existing  absence 
of    education    among   the   people,   reforms   w^ould 
have  to  come  from  above.     In  order,  however,  to 
pave  the  way  for  such  reforms,  a  movement  from 
below,  a  conspiracy,  a  revolt  even,  would  be  neces- 
^    sary.     Every  nation  should  have  a  right  to  decide 
p^      its   own  destiny ;    consequently,    not   only   should 
^       Poland  be  independent,  but  the  Ukraine  also  should 
Jk       receive  autonomy. 

^'  Tshernyshevski' s   famous   novel    What   is   to   be 

Done  ?  (Tshto-Dyelatj)  had  a  practical  influence 
upon  revolutionary  tendencies  in  Russia.  It  was 
written,  while  in  prison,  for  the  Contemporary 
Review  (Sovremennik),  and  was  passed  by  the 
censor.  This  means  that  the  work  contains  no 
clear    and    definite    political   ideas.     It    is,    how- 


LITTERATEURS    AND    PHILOSOPHERS    151 

ever,  full  of  subversive  theories  on  metaphysical 
and  religious  questions,  family  life  and  private 
property.  At  first  the  authorities  judged  the 
novel  to  be  a  work  of  pure  fiction  only,  but  the 
Russian  public  could  read  between  the  lines,  and 
finally  the  censorship  grew  alarmed  and  confiscated 
the -book. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS 

(continued) 

Material  and  Moral  Discontent 

During  the  first  years  of  Alexander's  reign,  new 
social  ideas  and  ideals  developed :  ideals  not  only 
of  political  freedom  and  social  equality,  but  also 
of  religion,  philosophy  and  a  conception  of  the 
world  in  general.  The  most  characteristic  of 
these  new  currents  of  thought  were  Realism, 
Rationalism  and  Utilitarianism,  a  glorification  of 
life  and  freedom.  The  immediate  result  was  a 
tendency  to  criticise  everything  mercilessly  and  to 
submit  all  things  to  a  close  analysis  and  pass  them 
through  the  crucible  of  reason.  The  adherents  of 
this  rationalism  were  not  afraid  of  the  radical 
deductions  of  their  thoughts  and  arguments  ;  they 
had  entirely  lost  their  reverence  and  awe  for 
tradition. 

One  of  the  by-results  of  the  realism  and  rational- 
ism of  this  period  was  Nihilism.  Nihilism  has 
often  been  confounded  and  identified  with  bombs 
and  dynamite,  with  anarchy  and  terror,  but,  in 
reality.  Nihilism  is  merely  an  intellectual  current 
of  thought.  At  first,  it  was  a  cult  of  extreme 
individualism  that  took  the  human  personality  as 

162 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     158 

its  starting  point  and  concentrated  all  its  efforts 
and  endeavours  upon  the  emancipation  of  man 
from  the  factors  of  social  life.  Nihilism  was  not 
concerned  with  the  people  as  a  social  collectivity, 
but  with  man  as  an  individual,  man  bound  and 
oppressed  by  chains  and  shackles  of  all  kinds,  in- 
tellectual and  moral.  Nihilism,  therefore,  criti- 
cised religion,  family  and  marriage  relations,  and 
the  numerous  prejudices  created  by  custom  and 
tradition.  Turgeniev  masterfully  drew  a  perfect 
type  of  a  Nihilist  in  his  novel  Fathers  and  Sons. 
It  is  said  that  he  was  the  first  to  use  the  expression 
Nihilism;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  J.  de  Maistre 
had  already  spoken  of  "  rienism  "  in  his  corres- 
pondence.^ 

Russian  Nihilism  was  not  an  aspiration  towards 
the  Neant,  but,  on  the  contrary,  towards  reality, 
enjoyment  of  terrestial  possessions  and  pleasures. 
It  was  optimistic  and  revolutionary,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  fatalism,  pessimism  and  spirit  of 
resignation  of  India.  In  its  indignation  against 
human  and  social  iniquity,  Nihilism  railed  against 
tradition  and  the  State  as  the  responsible  agents 
of  human  misery  ;  it  preached  destruction  with  a 
view  to  the  pleasure  of  building  up.  "  La  joie  de 
detruire,"  wrote  Bakunin,  "  est  en  meme  temps 
la  joie  de  creer."  '  Nihilism  was  not  a  war  be- 
tween classes  like  socialism,  it  was  the  desperate 
fight  of  the  people  against  autocracy,  the  incar- 
nation of  arbitrary  authority  and  opposition. 
Nihilism  has  often  been  described  as  negation ; 
this  is  only  partially  true.  It  was  negative,  inas- 
much as  it  denied  the  existing  traditional  order 

1  Cf.  J.  de  Maistre,  Correspondance,  vol.  ii,  pp.  287-290. 
'  Cf.  J.  Bourdeau,  Le  Socialisme  alleinand,  Paris  1892,  p.  275. 


154         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

of  things;  it  was  destructive,  inasmuch  as  it 
tended  to  make  tabula  rasa  of  the  whole  social 
structure !  "  Take  earth  and  heaven,  take  life 
and  death,  the  soul  and  God  and  spit  on  it,  that 
is  Nihilism,"  said  one  of  its  adherents.^ 

But  it  would  be  wrong  to  imagine  that  the 
ultimate  goal  of  Nihilism  was  negation  pure  and 
simple.  Universal  chaos  was  not  the  sole  purpose 
of  Nihilism,  just  as  wars,  which  are  so  destructive, 
are  not  fought  for  the  purpose  of  destroying.  A 
war  is  always  considered  by  those  who  fight  it  as 
a  factor  of  reconstruction.  The  Nihilist  never 
preached  annihilation,  extermination  and  des- 
truction for  their  own  sakes,  but  with  the  sole 
idea  of  rebuilding  upon  the  ruins.  The  Nihilists 
fought  against  the  existing  order  of  things,  the 
prejudicies  and  established  institutions  that  have 
enslaved  humanity  and  stand  in  the  way  of  any 
real  progress,  and  so  make  men  suffer.  Their  aim 
was  deliverance :  deliverance  of  the  sufferers  from 
the  chains  of  the  past  and  tradition,  chains  which 
the  tyrants  of  all  ages  and  nations  had  forged. 
The  aims  of  Russian  Nihilism  were  certainly 
never  selfish,  never  egotistical ;  they  were  always 
characterised  by  a  spirit  of  self-effacement,  of 
altruism,  of  mysticism,  which  one  cannot  but 
admire  whatever  one  may  think  of  the  means  em- 
ployed in  the  endeavour  to  realise  these  aims.* 
But  then,  as  I  have  said,  wars,  too,  destructive  in 
themselves,  are  fought  and  justified  because  they 
have  a  constructive  purpose,  a  goal  of  delivery  in 
view.  And  after  all,  in  our  human  society,  it  is 
success  alone  that  decides  between  crime  and  noble 

1  Cf,  Leroy-Beaulieu,  The  Empire  of  the  Tsars. 

2  Bevue  dea  Deux  Mondea,  October  15th,  1876. 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     155 

deed.  I  think  it  was  Pascal  who  once  said : 
"  Ne  pouvant  pas  forcer  la  justice,  on  justifie  la 
force." 

In  the  days  of  which  I  am  writing  the  most 
prominent  exponent  of  Nihilism  was  Pissarev. 
According  to  this  writer — at  least  during  the  early 
years  of  his  activity — Nihilism  was  the  expression 
of  a  love  of  life  and  an  eflort  to  shake  oil  all  shackles, 
whilst  socialism  was  the  manifestation  of  the  dis- 
content of  those  social  groups  who  were  oppressed 
socially,  economically  or  politically.  Nihilism  was 
the  expression  of  the  discontent  of  a  social  group 
living  under  tolerable,  economical  and  material 
conditions,  but  sighing  beneath  the  yoke  of  moral 
and  religious  thraldom,  of  tradition  and  custom. 
The  tendencies  of  Socialism  and  Nihilism,  though 
they  were  both  expressions  of  discontent — that 
discontent  which,  as  I  have  shown,  is  the  primary 
cause  of  all  revolutions — expressed  the  discontent 
of  entirely  different  groups.  Social  democracy 
in  Russia  was  wholly  concerned  with  society  as 
a  collectivity,  with  the  labouring  classes,  the  people 
and  the  proletariat,  whilst  Nihilism  was  a  more 
intellectual  anarchic  tendency;  it  was,  as  it  were, 
a  moral  discontent  that  had  a  great  deal  in  com- 
mon w^ith  the  individualism  of  Stirner.  Nihilism 
in  Russia  certainly  paved  the  way  for  anarchism, 
that  took  the  negation  of  the  State  as  its  first  and 
fundamental  principle.^ 

Nihilism  first  made  its  appearance  in  1862,  but 
already,  by  1870,  it  had  practically  ceased  as  a 
separate  intellectual  current  of  thought.  Prac- 
tice had  proved  that  the  human  personality  is 
intimately  connected  with  and  dependent  upon 
1  Cf.  Kulcyzki,  I.e.  vol.  i,  p.  311. 


156        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

political  and  social  circumstances  and  conditions. 
All  that  remained  of  the  Nihilism  of  the  'sixties  was 
the  intense  hatred  of  external  oppression,  princi- 
pally political,  and  the  effort  to  secure  for  the 
human  personality  a  free  and  natural  develop- 
ment. This  new  phase  of  thought  Nihilism  shared 
with  the  radical,  progressive  and  revolutionary 
tendencies  of  the  period.  The  socialistic  current, 
on  the  other  hand,  gradually  developed  into  the 
revolutionary  anarchic  doctrine  of  Bakunin  and 
the  semi-anarchic  of  Lavrov. 

Peter  Lavrovitsh  Lavrov  was  born  at  Melekhovo, 
a  village  in  the  government  of  Pskov,  on  June  14th, 
1823.  He  was  at  first  educated  privately  and 
then  entered  the  Military  Academy,  or  Artillery 
School,  where  he  obtained  the  rank  of  officer  in 
1842.  He  taught  mathematics  from  1844  to 
1846.  His  literary  activity  began  in  1856,  and  he 
first  attracted  attention  with  his  work  on  the 
Philosophy  of  Hegel.  He  contributed  to  the 
Russian  encyclopsedic  dictionary  of  Krajevski, 
and  became  its  chief  editor.  In  this  work  he  pub- 
lished numerous  articles  on  history,  philosophy  and 
religion.  The  publication  of  the  dictionary  was 
stopped  by  order  of  the  Government.  Lavrov 
early  became  an  enemy  of  Tsardom,  and  Tsar- 
dom,  in  its  turn,  from  the  first  kept  a  careful 
eye  on  him. 

In  1865,  Lavrov  returned  to  Russia  from  a 
journey  abroad  with  his  wife,  who  was  ill.  Soon 
after  his  return  Karakasov  fired  his  famous  shot 
in  his  attempt  to  assassinate  the  Tsar  Alexander  II, 
in  1866.  Lavrov  was  amongst  the  victims  upon 
whom  Tsardom  vented  its  wrath.  He  was  exiled 
to  Vologda.     Three  years  later  he  succeeded  in 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     157 

escaping,  thanks  to  the  assistance  and  self-sacrifice 
of  the  famous  revolutionary  Herman  Lopatin. 
He  came  to  Paris  in  1870,  and  was  soon  recognised 
as  the  leader  of  the  swiftly  developing  socialist- 
revolutionary  movement.  In  London,  whither  he 
went  for  a  short  time,  he  met  Marx  and  Engels  ; 
his  acquaintance  with  these  men  greatly  influenced 
his  mental  evolution  towards  scientific  socialism, 
as  the  doctrine  of  Marx  has  been  called.  In  1871, 
Lavr6v  returned  to  Paris  and  was  requested  by 
the  Russian  revolutionary  party  to  found  and 
edit  a  socialistic  review.  In  1873,  the  first  number 
of  the  revolutionary-socialist  review,  Vpered  {For- 
wards), was  published.  Lavrov  died  in  Paris  on 
February  6th,  1900. 

Peter  Lavrovitsh  was  the  most  scientific  of 
Russian  philosophers.  He  attached  little  or  no 
importance  to  the  theological  or  metaphysical 
speculations  of  former  generations,  for  the  real 
object  of  philosophy  should  be  the  study  of  facts, 
and  of  the  deductions  to  be  made  from  them. 
Lavrov  therefore  devoted  his  intellectual  and 
moral  energy  to  the  philosophy  of  history  and 
sociology,  and  to  the  elaboration  of  a  system  of 
social  ethics.  One  of  the  principal  problems 
which  he  endeavoured  to  solve  was  that  of  the 
personality  of  the  individual.  The  pivots  of 
Marx's  theories  are  economic  evolution  and  deve- 
lopment of  the  productive  forces ;  the  central 
idea  of  Lavrov' s  theories  are  the  progress  and 
development  of  the  individual.  Progress,  accord- 
ing to  his  philosophy,  consists  in  the  physical, 
intellectual  and  moral  development  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  in  his  realisation  of  truth  and  justice 
through  proper  social  organisation.     Social  happi- 


158        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

ness,  according  to  Lavrov,  is  nothing  but  the 
happiness  of  the  individuals  who  compose  social 
groups  or  nations,  and  they  therefore  have  a 
right  to  modify  the  existing  forms  of  society. 
The  intellectual  Mite,  possessing  convictions  based 
upon  thought,  are  the  real  makers  of  history ;  all 
others,  slaves  of  customs  and  traditions  which 
they  accept  without  investigation,  are  beyond  the 
pale  of  history.  They  may  be  as  civilised  and  as 
intellectual  as  possible,  but  as  long  as  they  dfciploy 
their  intellectual  powers  merely  in  defence  of  the 
existing  order  of  things  hallowed  by  tradition, 
without  submitting  it  to  a  minute  criticism,  they 
are  only  "  civilised  savages,"  or  "  savages  of  a 
superior  culture.'* 

Among  those  who  have  remained  beyond  the 
pale  of  history,  Lavrov  counts  the  governing 
classes,  who  obstinately  refuse  to  criticise  and 
to  examine  ;  who  cling  to  their  privileges,  based 
upon  historical  traditions.  Another  group  are  the 
poor  labourers  who,  absorbed  by  their  daily  work, 
by  their  struggle  for  existence,  have  neither  time 
nor  leisure  to  think,  to  criticise,  or  to  examine. 
They  are  the  victims  of  civilisation,  the  scapegoats 
of  humanity.  It  is  therefore  the  duty  of  the 
thinking  minority  to  enlighten  these  victims  upon 
the  causes  of  their  sufferings,  and  thus  enable 
them  to  take  part  in  the  making  and  shaping  of 
history,  and  to  advance  along  the  road  of  progress, 
through  the  development,  at  one  and  the  same 
time,  of  the  individual  consciousness  and  of  social 
solidarity. 

In  his  own  words  : 

"  We  are  approaching  an  epoch  when  the  realisa- 
tion of  the  human  ideal  will  be  possible ;  when  the 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     150 

instinctive  tendencies  of  the  individual  will  be 
brought  to  harmonise  with  the  welfare  of  the 
collectivity.  Only  the  organisation  of  men  into 
one  harmonious  group,  united  by  the  interests  of 
collective  w^ork  and  search  for  justice,  can  consti- 
tute the  happiness  of  the  individual."^ 

Men  will  then  be  able  to  overcome  the  struggle 
for  existence,  to  conquer  the  animal  world,  and, 
above  all,  to  bring  about  that  domination  of 
critical  thought  over  nature  that  is  the  basis  of 
true  progress.  But,  says  Lavrov,  the  solitary  intel- 
lectual can  do  but  little  ;  he  must  base  himself 
upon  the  masses  who  are  working  and  sufiering. 
Wherever  the  intellectual  minority  have  remained 
isolated,  civilisation  has  perished.  Witness  the 
civilisations  of  antiquity,  when  the  masses,  kept  in 
slavery,  found  no  interest  in,  and  felt  no  inclina- 
tion to  uphold,  a  civilisation  the  inner  meaning  of 
which  they  ignored.  The  so-called  superman, 
who  creates  a  gulf  between  himself  and  the  people, 
alienates  the  masses  and  works  out  his  own  per- 
dition. In  other  words,  those  intellectuals  who 
are  really  anxious  for  the  development  of  the 
individual  and  the  welfare  of  the  collectivity 
should  come  down  from  their  Pisgah  heights 
into  the  vast  plain  of  common  humanity,  take 
the  wandering  masses  by  the  hand  and  lead 
them  to  the  promised  land,  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey.  A  superior  civilisation,  if  it  wishes 
to  exist,  must  be  based  upon  democracy,  for  with- 
out the  help  of  the  masses  it  must  perish  or  fall 
a  victim  to  some  invading  race  or  some  military 
adventurer. 

The  Lettres  Historiques  above  quoted  were  pub- 

*  Lettrea  Historiqu9S. 


160         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

lished  in  1868,  and  exercised  a  profound  influence 
upon  the  revolutionary  movement.  They  crystal- 
lised all  that  the  intellectuals  had  been  vaguely 
feeling  ;  they  gave  a  clear  and  definite  answer  to 
the  question  :  "  What  shall  we  do  ?  "  The  intel- 
lectuals, Lavrov  said,  have  a  duty  towards  the 
working  classes,  upon  whose  shoulders  they  are 
resting.  They  are  not  themselves  producing  any 
material  wealth.  If,  therefore,  they  proudly  and 
aristocratically  keep  aloof  from  the  masses,  they 
are  not  only  selfish  but  are  also  in  a  social  sense 
^valueless  and  declare  themselves  socially  in- 
solvent. They  can  redeem  their  debt  to  the 
masses,  who  provide  them  with  material  comforts, 
only  by  going  among  the  people  and  enlightening 
them  as  to  their  requirements,  their  eternal 
rights,  and  also  their  strength.  The  intellectuals 
should  not  hesitate  to  advise  democracy  to  rise 
and  fight  against  the  exploiting  classes,  and  to 
bring  about  a  new  order  of  things  based  upon 
justice. 

The  established  order  of  society  Lavrov  declares 
to  be  hopelessly  immoral.  But  what  is  "  im- 
moral "  ?  To  this  question  Lavrov  gives  a  clear 
and  definite  answer  :  "  All  that  impedes  the  pro- 
gressive development,  physical  and  mental,  of  the 
individual."  Only  a  society  that  is  based  upon 
justice,  that  enables  all  its  members  to  co-operate 
for  their  common  happiness  and  progressive 
development,  that  endeavours  to  lessen,  if  not  to 
put  an  end  to,  human  suffering,  is  moral.  Thus 
Lavrov  is  at  once  an  individualist  and  a  socialist. 
His  doctrines  may  be  compared  to  those  of  Benoit 
Malon,  the  father  of  "  Integral  Socialism."  Lav- 
rov, like  Malon,  dismissed  both  Kant's  ''  Duty  for 


>     >       ,  »  '     ' 

'         '     i»     •     4       »      ' 

3    »  i  », 


3  '     t 

'       »       , 


>  • 


J  J 


'5^      3 


•  ' 


i     3   it 


»  » 


'«a^ 


Catherine  Bereshkovskaya. 


Peter  Lavrov. 


Maxim E  Gorky. 


Plekhanov. 


160] 


<    (    C     ( 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     161 

duty's  sake "  and  the  motive  of  self-interest  of 
the  materiahstic  school.  He  accepted  to  the  full 
Malon's  doctrine,  "  Altruism  will  be  the  basis  of 
our  new  morality,  which  will  be  neither  theological, 
nor  metaphysical,  but  simply  social."  To  sum 
up,  Lavrov  demands  not  mere  partial  reforms,  but 
a  radical  change  of  society,  and  this  change 
should,  if  necessary,  be  brought  about  by  violent 
means. 

Such  was  the  programme  Lavrov  traced  in  his 
theory  of  the  "  insolvency  of  the  intellectual 
classes "  ;  and  it  was  thus  he  answered  the 
questions  which  were  agitating  Russia's  intel- 
lectuals. Quite  a  different  answer  was  given 
by  Michel  Bakunin  to  the  great  question : 
''  What  shall  we  do  ? "  Bakunin  was  an  anar- 
chist, whilst  Lavrov  was  a  socialist,  d  la  Malon, 
but  still  a  socialist ;  hence  the  divergence  of  their 
opinions. 

Michel  Bakunin  was  born  in  1814.  He  was  the 
descendant  of  an  old  noble  family,  the  scion  of 
boyars,  the  son  of  rich  landed  proprietors.  His 
studies  finished,  he  entered  the  School  of  Artillery 
at  Petrograd.  He  passed  his  examinations,  and 
his  rank  and  fortune  should  have  opened  all 
doors  to  him  and  given  him  a  brilliant  future,  but 
he  quarrelled  with  his  father  and  soon  found 
himself  exiled  to  a  small  garrison  town  in  an 
obscure  corner  of  the  Empire.  Here  he  passed 
the  best  years  of  his  youth,  and  grew  pessimistic 
and  bitter.  When  about  twenty-two  years  old  he 
left  the  army  and  went  to  Moscow,  where  he  joined 
one  of  the  clubs,  or  circles,  whose  members  devoted 
themselves  to  discussions  of  Hegelian  philosophy. 
The  idle,  rich  Stankevitsh  propagated  the  ideas  of 

11 


162         THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  German  philosopher.  The  "  essence  of  the 
absolute  Spirit "  was  one  of  the  favourite  subjects 
of  discussion. 

In  1841,  Bakunin  left  Moscow  and  went  to  Berlin, 
where  he  hoped  to  be  more  thoroughly  initiated 
into  the  mysteries  of  Hegelianism.  It  may  be 
said  that  Hegel's  philosophy  owed  much  of  its 
success  to  its  obscure  phraseology.  The  students 
of  his  system  had  to  grope  in  the  dark  for  his 
meaning,  with  the  inevitable  result  that  each 
found  what  suited  him  best,  the  meaning  that  was 
most  congenial  to  his  personality  and  needs.  It 
was  a  spiritual  food  similar  to  the  manna  of  the 
Hebrews  in  the  desert  which,  according  to  a 
saying  in  the  Talmud,  had  the  taste  of  the  favourite 
food  of  each  eater.  That  is  the  secret  of  the 
success  of  many  an  obscure  and  contradictory 
doctrine ;  it  can  suit  all  tastes  and  palates.  A 
new  doctrine,  which  is  clear,  logical  and  free  of 
mysticism  and  contradictions,  rarely  appeals  to 
the  vast  majority.  Where  certain  students  dis- 
covered proofs  of  atheism  in  Hegel's  philosophy, 
others  found  the  principles  of  faith.  Hegel  was 
variously  declared  to  be  the  most  conservative  of 
conservatives,  the  upholder  of  the  idea  of  State 
and  Church,  and  the  most  revolutionary  of  revo- 
lutionaries. It  merely  depended  upon  the  reader. 
However,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  an  entire  revolu- 
tionary school  was  founded  upon  Hegel's  phil- 
osophy.^ His  disciples  deciphered  the  cryptic 
style  of  their  master  as  if  it  were  a  sacred  text, 
the  Bible  of  the  revolution. 

Bakunin  was  much  attracted  by  Hegel's  phil- 

*  Cf.  Funck-Brentano,  Lea  Sophiates  alletnanda  et  lea  Nihiliatee 
Ruaaea,  Paris,  1887. 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     163 

osophy,  which,  though  based  upon  the  principle 
of  Hberty,  nevertheless  relegated  it  to  the  domain 
of  the  spirit.  In  practice,  Hegel  sacrificed  the 
individual  to  the  State,  since  he  recognised  the 
omnipotence  of  the  latter.  His  philosophy  was 
nothing  less  than  an  apology  for  absolutism  and 
autocracy  as  they  existed  in  Russia,  and  in 
Hegelianism  Bakunin  found  some  justification  for 
the  autocratic  government  of  Nicholas  I.  It  is 
interesting  to  note,  in  passing,  that  even  the  most 
revolutionary  doctrines  promulgated  by  Germans 
are  not  free  from  a  certain  homage  to  power. 
Bakunin  had  been  a  member  of  the  "  Northern 
League  "  which  brought  about  the  Revolution  of 
the  Decembrists,  but  at  that  time  he  was  not 
sufficiently  interested  in  the  movement  to  take  a 
prominent  part  in  it,  and  therefore  escaped  the 
"  tragic  but  glorious  fate  "  of  the  majority  of  his 
companions.  Yet  by  nature  and  temperament 
Bakunin  was  not  a  dreamer  ;  he  was  avid  for 
action.  Whilst  studying  the  philosophy  of  Hegel, 
he  also  devoted  himself  to  the  doctrine  of  Proud- 
hon.  He  finally  became  a  revolutionary  phil- 
osopher ready  to  play  the  part  of  an  "  architect 
of  ruins." 

He  left  Germany  in  1843  and  proceeded  to 
Paris,  which  was  just  then  seething  with  socialistic 
fermentations,  with  the  ideas  of  Cabet  and  the 
teachings  of  Louis  Blanc.  The  revolution  of 
1848  gave  Bakunin  ample  scope  for  his  ideas  and 
doctrines,  for  his  eager  activity  and  superabun- 
dant energy.  In  1848  he  was  a  pan-Slavist,  and 
was  therefore  hostile  to  pan-Germanism,  yet 
during  the  insurrection  of  1849  he  played  an  im- 
portant   role   among   the    insurgents    at    Dresden 


164         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

against  the  Prussian  and  Saxon  troops.  He  was 
arrested  at  Chemnitz  on  Mav  10th,  and  condemned 
to  death,  but  his  sentence  was  later  commuted  to 
life  imprisonment.  Then  Russia  claimed  him, 
and  sent  him  to  Siberia.  After  some  two  years 
of  exile  he  escaped  and  managed  to  reach  London 
by  way  of  Japan  and  America.  Bakunin's  liberty- 
loving  soul — that  soul  that  slumbers  in  every 
Russian — was  now  fully  awake ;  he  abandoned 
orthodox  Hegelianism  and  joined  the  new  philo- 
sophic school  known  as  the  "  Left  Hegelians,'* 
which  criticised  the  political  absolutism  and 
religious  idealism  of  the  master. 

The  leaders  of  the  new  school  were  Strauss, 
Feuerbach  and  Bruno  Bauer.  Bakunin's  intel- 
lectual world  was  henceforth  dominated  by  the 
principle  of  liberty.  Hegel  had  taught  him  to 
seek  liberty  in  the  land  of  shadows,  in  the 
realms  of  the  spirit,  in  metaphysical  worlds, 
but  now  Bakunin  refused  to  accept  dreams  for 
realities. 

"  They  are  only  pale  reproductions  and  mon- 
strous exaggerations  of  the  real  world,  which  we 
are  inclined  to  treat  with  such  contempt.  We 
have  at  last  learned  to  understand  that  soaring 
into  the  more  lofty  regions  of  the  spirit,  we  did 
not  grow  richer  but  poorer,  both  in  heart  and 
spirit ;  not  more  powerful,  but  more  powerless. 
We  have  at  last  understood  that  when  we  amused 
ourselves,  like  children,  by  peopling  the  vast  void 
with  our  dreams,  we  abandoned  the  real  world 
and  our  entire  existence  to  false  prophets,  tyrants 
and  .  exploiters  of  all  kinds,  religious,  political 
and  economic.  By  searching  for  ideal  liberty 
beyond   this    real    world,    we    were    condemning 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     165 

ourselves  to  the  saddest  and  most  shameful 
slavery."  ^ 

Bakunin  was  persuaded  that  there  was  no  other 
world  than  this  real  one,  and  that  all  transcen- 
dental conceptions  were  inanities  ;  he  was  con- 
vinced that  humanity  could  attain  to  perfect 
happiness  in  this  world — the  real— rif  it  emanci- 
pated itself  from  all  authority,  and  he  believed  it 
to  be  his  duty  to  help  humanity,  as  far  as  it  lay 
in  his  power,  to  realise  such  an  emancipation. 

Being  a  materialist,  Bakunin  considered  man 
to  be  merely  an  animal  that  has  reached  a  higher 
stage  of  development ;  thought  in  itself  is  only  a 
material  product  of  the  brain ;  man  is  distin- 
guished from  the  lower  animals  by  his  faculty  of 
thought  and  his  sociability.  Thanks  to  these 
two  qualities  man  is  superior  to  all  other  animals 
inhabiting  our  planet,  among  whom  alone  he  has 
a  future.  "  Sociability  and  human  solidarity " 
constitute  the  primordial  causes  of  human  pro- 
gress. Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  was  therefore 
wrong  when  he  maintained  that  man,  who  is  per- 
fectly free  when  he  is  isolated,  has  to  sacrifice  a 
portion  of  his  freedom  as  soon  as  he  joins  his  fellow 
men. 

"  Man,"  stated  Bakunin,  "  is  born  a  brute  and  a 
slave.  It  is  only  in  contact  with  his  fellow  men, 
in  the  midst  of  the  collectivity,  that  he  has  been 
able  gradually  to  humanise  and  emancipate  him- 
self, to  acquire  the  faculties  of  thought,  speech 
and  will-power.  He  would  never  have  developed 
them  had  he  lived  in  isolation.  IMan,  therefore, 
has  only  reached  his  present  degree  of  development 

1  M.    Nettlau,    The    Life    of    Bakunin,     London,     1896-99, 
p.  37. 


166         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

thanks  to  the  collective  efforts  of  all  members  of 
society,  past  and  present." 

The  destiny  of  men,  therefore,  is  to  live  socially, 
to  help  one  another  and  to  conquer  natm'e.  Such 
a  goal  can  only  be  reached  after  a  long  historical 
evolution.  The  final  goal  of  humanity  will  be,  on 
the  one  hand,  obedience  to  the  laws  of  nature, 
not  because  they  have  been  imposed  upon  it  by 
external  will,  divine  or  human,  by  a  collectivity 
or  by  an  individual,  but  because  those  laws  are 
innate  in  humanity  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
emancipation  of  the  individual  from  all  authority 
which  to-day  his  fellow  men  are  anxious  to  compel 
him  to  submit  to.  These  are  the  essential  con- 
ditions of  liberty  to  which  man  can  only  attain 
at  the  end  of  his  evolution,  and  therein  lies  the 
whole  future  of  humanity.  "  The  true,  great, 
supreme  goal  of  history  is  the  real,  complete 
emancipation  of  every  individual."  The  past  and 
its  traditions  must  therefore  be  entirely  aban- 
doned, for  progress  implies  the  gradual  dismissal 
and  discarding  of  the  errors  of  the  past.  "  Our 
animality  lies  behind  us,  our  humanity,  which 
alone  can  lend  us  light  and  warmth,  is  before  us. 
We  must  never  look  behind  us — always  ahead. 
If  ever  we  look  back  into  the  past,  it  should  be 
for  the  purpose  merely  of  realising  what  we  have 
been  and  what  we  should  never  be  again." 

Bakunin  criticised  sharply  and  mercilessly  both 
the  bourgeois  State  and  bourgeois  society.  He 
proved  that  in  the  struggle  between  the  working 
classes  and  the  bourgeoisie,  the  State  would 
always  and  inevitably  become  an  instrument  of 
oppression.  He  thus  arrived  at  conclusions  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  those  of  the  socialists,  and 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     167 

even  of  Lavrov,  who  has  been  called  above  an 
integral  socialist.  Whilst  Lavrov  advocated  pro- 
paganda by  the  elite,  and  a  preparation  of  the 
masses  for  the  future  revolution  and  for  the  new 
State,  Bakunin  called  upon  the  oppressed,  all 
over  the  world,  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  authority, 
to  hurl  down  from  their  pedestals  the  two  idols 
man  had  made  himself — the  State  and  bourgeois 
society.  "  This  destruction,"  he  maintained,  "  is 
the  holy,  absolutely  necessary  process,  without 
which  no  social  revolution  is  possible  ;  it  would 
be  not  only  destructive  but  also  constructive, 
as  it  would  call  new  worlds  into  being."  The 
new  world  would  be  "a  confraternity  of  men  " 
without  distinction  of  language,  nationality  or 
race. 

Bakunin' s  thirst  for  liberty,  his  abhorrence  of 
slavery,  of  thraldom,  of  shackles,  made  him  attack 
every  authority  in  the  world,   divine  or  human. 
To  him,  man's  belief  in  God  was  one  of  the  chief 
causes  of  man's  slavery;  therefore  he  condemned 
that  belief  as  one  of  the  most  false  and  pernicious 
ideas   w^hich   had    ever    estranged   man   from   his 
natural   destiny.     He    considered   that    man    had 
created   God   in    his   own   image    and   had   then 
imagined  himself  to  be  the  creature  of  this  creation — 
God — of  his  own  brain  !     And  what  was  the  result  ? 
Man  had  thus  inaugurated  an   era  of  obscurity, 
unhappiness    and    slavery    for    his    species,    had 
developed   principles,    theories   and   doctrines,    all 
chains  to  bind  him  and  stand  in  the  way  of  his 
emancipation  and  true  freedom.     ''  L' existence  de 
Dieu  implique  I'abdication  de  la  raison  et  de  la 
justice  humaines,  elle  est  la  negation  de  I'humaine 
liberte  et  aboutit  nec6ssairement  a  un  esclavage 


168        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

non  seulement  theorique  mais  pratique."  ^  Ac- 
cording to  religion,  God  is  truth,  justice  and  life 
eternal,  therefore  man  must  be  falsehood,  iniquity 
and  death.  If  God  be  the  master,  man  must  be 
the  slave  ;  again,  if  man  be  the  slave  of  God, 
then  he  must  also  be  the  slave  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  State. 

To  Bakunin  this  deduction  was  the  only  logical 
one.  It  is  one  that  Catholicism  has  understood 
better  than  all  other  religions,  and  it  is  therefore 
that  the  Catholic  Church  stands  for  religion  abso- 
lute. Bakunin  attacked  Catholicism  fiercely  ;  it 
is  the  religion  that  more  than  any  other  upholds 
and  sanctifies  the  principle  of  State  and  authority. 
"  Dieu  est,"  he  exclaims,  "  done  I'homme  est 
esclave.  L'homme  est  intelligent,  juste,  libre, 
done  Dieu  n'existe  pas."  *  He  considered  that 
religion  implied  intellectual  subjection,  and  that 
intelligent  subjection  must  inevitably  lead  to 
political  and  social  slavery.  "  RSUgion,  and  even 
deistic  metaphysics,  which  is  only  theology  in  dis- 
guise, is  the  most  formidable  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  true  emancipation  of  society.  And  that  is  the 
reason  why  all  governments,  and  all  European 
statesmen  who  are  not  metaphysicians,  theologians 
or  deists,  and  who,  in  their  heart  of  hearts,  believe 
ni  d  Dieu  ni  au  diable,  so  passionately  protect 
metaphysics  and  religion,  no  matter  which  religion, 
so  long  as  it  teaches  patience,  resignation  and 
submission."  ^ 

It  was  religion  that  enabled  the  conquerors  in 
the  struggle  for  life  to  proclaim  that  they  had  been 

^  Federalisme,    Socialisme,    et    Antitheologisme,    Paris,    1895 
(Bakounine,  (Euvres,  p.  64). 
a  I.e.  p.  64.  8  ii)id.^  p.  65, 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     169 

specially  designated  by  Providence  to  rule  and 
govern  over  other  men  ;  and  these  others  have 
now  grown  convinced  that  if  they  revolted  against 
the  existing  order  of  things,  they  would  gravely 
offend  Divinity.  They  have  grown  to  believe  that 
it  is  their  duty  to  cringe  and  to  submit  to  the 
dictates  of  the  delegates  of  the  Divinity.  "  Toute 
autorite  temporelle  ou  humaine  procMe  directe- 
ment  de  1' autorite  spirituelle  ou  divine."  ^  In 
other  words,  the  governing  classes,  the  conquerors 
in  the  struggle  for  life,  by  basing  their  momentary 
victory,  their  autfiority,  upon  divine  right,  by 
appealing  to  the  approbation  of  Divinity  and  thus 
sanctioning  their  victory,  have  compelled  the 
vanquished  to  resign  themselves  to  eternal  slavery. 
And  even  when  the  vanquished  feel  that  they 
have  grown  stronger,  that  they  could  now  attempt 
a  new  battle  and,  in  their  turn,  gain  the  victory, 
they  are  assured  that  they  have  no  right  to  declare 
war,  for  it  would  be  a  grave  offence  against 
Divinity.  And  thus  the  astute  victors  are  allowed 
to  remain  in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  fruits 
of  their  usurpation.  The  divine  principle  there- 
fore, the  belief  in  God,  is  the  basis  of  all  authority 
— and  authority  is  the  negation  of  liberty.  The 
divine  principle  implies  unquestioning,  unreason- 
ing submission  to  the  two  institutions  :  Church 
and  State,  and  all  their  representatives,  high  and 
low  ;  so  Bakunin  stated.  ''  II  est  evident  que  tant 
que  nous  aurons  un  maitre  au  ciel  nous  serons 
esclaves  sur  la  terre."  * 

Having  thoroughly  criticised  the  idea  of  God, 
Bakunin  next  attacked  the  idea  of  State,  which  in 

1  Dieu  et  VEtat,  ibid.,  p.  283. 
a  Ibid.,  p.  282, 


170        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

itself  is  one  of  the  principal  obstacles  to  the  libera- 
tion of  humanity,  and  impedes  the  realisation  of 
its  destiny.  The  State  can  only  guarantee  and 
maintain  what  it  finds  ready  :  wealth  on  the  one 
hand  and  poverty  on  the  other — the  status  quo. 
The  State,  too,  perpetually  fosters  rivalry  and 
discord  among  men.  "  After  all,  the  supreme 
law  of  the  State  is  merely  a  conservation  of  the 
State ;  all  States,  since  their  inception,  have  been 
the  cause  of  strife  and  war ;  rivalry  between  the 
State  and  its  own  subjects,  and  war  between  the 
different  States,  since  one  nation  could  only  be 
strong  and  powerful  if  its  neighbours  were 
weak.  The  State  is  therefore  tjie  cause  of  con- 
tinual wars,  internal  and  external,  and  thus, 
by  its  very  existence,  is  ''  the  most  flagrant, 
the  most  complete  and  cynical  negation  of 
humanity."  ^ 

The  State  never  recognises  human  right,  hu- 
manity and  civilisation  except  within  its  own 
boundaries.  It  has  its  own  special  morality :  this 
is  called  Raison  d'Etat.  Everything  that  serves 
the  greatness,  preservation  and  power  of  the 
State  is  right,  however  wrong,  and  even  revolting, 
it  may  be  from  the  point  of  view  of  human  morality. 
On  the  contrary,  the  most  holy  and  humanely  just 
thing  is  wrong  if  it  does  not  further  the  interests 
of  the  State.* 

International  law  does  not  exist,  and  never 
could  exist,  in  a  serious  and  true  manner,  without 
at  the  same  time  undermining  the  very  founda- 
tions of  the  principle  of  State." 

"  In  order  to  make  liberty,  justice  and  peace 

1  Dieu  et  VEtat,  p.  160.  »  Ihid.,  p.  161. 

2  Cf.  ibid.,  pp.  149,  150. 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     171 

triumph  in  Europe,  in  order  to  make  civil  war 
impossible  among  the  various  peoples  who  con- 
stitute the  European  family,  there  is  only  one 
way,  and  that  is  the  constitution  of  a  '  United 
States  of  Europe. '  "  But  was  Bakunin's  ideal  at 
all  similar  to  that  promulgated  to-day  by  our 
democrats  who  talk  of  a  League  of  Nations,  of  a 
United  States  of  Europe  ?  Not  at  all.  A  forma- 
tion of  a  United  States  of  Europe  by  the  States 
as  they  are  at  present  constituted  would,  con- 
sidering the  respective  powers  of  the  different 
States,  be  a  monstrous  inequality.  "  Therefore," 
said  Bakunin,  "  all  the  lovers  of  liberty  should 
first  set  their  respective  fatherlands  in  order,  pull 
down  the  old  order  of  things,  all  based  and  estab- 
lished upon  the  principles  of  violence  and  au- 
thority, and  replace  it  by  a  new  organisation 
whose  only  basis  would  be  the  interests,  require- 
ments and  natural  attractions  of  the  populations 
and  the  free  association  of  individuals  into  com- 
munities, of  communities  into  provinces,  of  pro- 
vinces into  nations,  and  of  nations  into  a  United 
States  of  Europe.  Consequently,  the  historic 
rights  of  States  must  be  abandoned,  all  questions 
relating  to  frontiers,  natural,  political,  strategical 
or  commercial,  must  be  dropped  and  considered 
as  a  part  of  ancient  history.^ 

In  comparison  with  the  other  adherents  of 
Internationalism,  Bakunin  was  very  far  advanced. 
Mazzini,  for  instance,  was  always  a  decided  adver- 
sary of  the  autonomy  of  provinces.  "  Democracy 
without  liberty,"  wrote  Bakunin,  "  cannot  serve 
us  as  a  banner."  Modern  Csesarism,  with  all  its 
hideous   consequences,   suspended   over   European 

1  Dieu  et  VEtat,  pp.  16,  17. 


172         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

humanity  like  a  terrible  menace  and  nightmare, 
also  calls  itself  democratic.  And  the  Moscow  and 
St.  Petersburg  Imperialism,  this  ideal  of  all  mili- 
tary and  bureaucratic  States,  has  it  not  crushed 
Poland  in  the  very  name  of  democracy  ?  But 
it  is  not  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  monarchic 
system  in  order  to  emancipate  the  nations  and 
endow  them  with  the  gifts  of  justice  and  peace. 
On  the  contrary,  we  are  convinced  that  even  a 
great  military  Republic,  bureaucratic  and  poli- 
tically centralised,  would  necessarily  become  a 
conquering  power,  oppressive  in  the  interior. 
France,  though  constituted  as  a  democratic  Re- 
public, nevertheless  favoured  a  policy  of  expansion 
and  conquest.  "It  is  strange,"  he  added,  "  that 
the  great  Revolution  which,  for  the  first  time  in 
history,  proclaimed  the  liberty  not  only  of  the 
citizen  but  of  man  in  general,  became  the  inheritor 
of  the  monarchic  principle  which  it  had  abolished, 
by  resuscitating  the  very  negation  of  liberty, 
namely,  centralisation  and  omnipotence  of  the 
State."  Thus,  according  to  Bakunin,  the  French 
Revolution,  which,  at  first,  had  been  inspired  by 
sentiments  of  love  and  liberty,  committed  moral 
suicide  when  it  endeavoured  to  reconcile  these 
principles  with  centralisation  of  State  ;  then,  it 
only  gave  birth  to  military  dictatorship  and 
Csesarism.  In  order  to  give  peace  and  liberty  to 
Europe,  the  centralisation  of  military  and  bureau- 
cratic States,  whether  autocratic,  constitutionally 
monarchic  or  even  republican,  should  be  abolished, 
and  the  great  principle  of  Federalism  be  made 
triumphant. 

To  sum  up  :   Bakunin  believed  that  the  principal 
result  of  the  coming  social  and  political  revolu- 


PHILOSOPHERS  AND   SOCIOLOGISTS   173 

tion  would  be  the  perfect  liberty  of  man.  Any 
individual  belonging  to  any  group  or  association 
of  labour  would  have  the  power  and  freedom  to 
detach  himself  from  it  and  join  another.  The 
communes  thus  constituted  would  enjoy  complete 
autonomy,  and  would  be  able  to  form  relationships 
between  themselves  in  conformity  with  their  com- 
mon interests. 

TJhough  the  majority  of  revolutionary  agitators 
have  been  strong  nationalists — for  instance,  Las- 
salle,  a  German  ;  Mazzini,  an  Italian  ;  Blanqui, 
a  Frenchman — Bakunin,  although  he  never  ceased 
to  be  a  Russian,  was  at  the  service  of  humanitv  as 
a  whole.  For  him,  nations  and  races  were  but 
fleeting  waves  in  the  vast  ocean  of  humanity.  His 
ideal  was  a  brotherhood :  "a  confraternity  of 
men  "  instead  of  a  "  league  of  nations."  In  this 
respect,  however,  he  was  thoroughly  Russian. 
''  We  Russians,"  wrote  Dostoevski,  "  have  at 
least  two  countries — patries — Russia  and  Europe. 
Our  mission  should  be  universally  human.  Our 
efforts  should  be  consecrated  to  the  service, 
not  of  Russia  alone,  or  even  of  the  whole  Sla- 
vonic world,  but  to  the  service  of  humanity  at 
large." 

Here  one  notices  the  differences  that  existed 
between  Marx  and  Bakunin.  The  former  was  a 
cold  intellectual,  the  latter  a  sentimentalist  and  an 
idealist,  despite  his  realistic  conception  of  the 
world.  Marx  had  a  deep  sense  of  justice,  but  no 
instinct  of  liberty,  whilst  Bakunin' s  soul  thirsted 
for  liberty.  Both  temperament  and  nationality 
account  for  much.  Marx,  although  of  Jewish 
descent,  was  thoroughly  Germanised ;  Bakunin 
was  a  Slav.     The  distinctive  traits  in  their  charac- 


174        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

ters  are  not  the  effect  of  their  respective  theories, 
but  rather  the  cause  of  the  latter.  If  we  search 
the  pages  of  history  of  human  thought  and  action, 
we  invariably  find  that  those  who  have,  or  are 
supposed  to  have,  worked  in  the  service  of  a  col- 
lectivity, have  been  merely  intellectual  machines, 
and  have  rarely,  if  ever,  been  moved  by  the  suffer- 
ing of  the  individual.  We  find  that  statesmen, 
politicians,  economists,  philosophers  and  religious 
teachers  who,  in  the  course  of  history,  have 
evolved  theories  and  plans  to  bring  happiness, 
spiritual  or  material,  to  a  race,  a  nation  or  a 
class,  to  a  collectivity  of  individuals,  have  always 
been  guided  by  intellect,  rarely  by  love.  To 
love  potential  generations  at  the  expense  of  the 
individual,  feeling  and  suffering  before  our  very 
eyes,  is  not  love.  The  leitmotif  of  the  benefac- 
tors of  future  generations,  of  masses  unknown  to 
them,  may  be  inspired  by  a  lofty  purpose  ;  but 
the  honest  psychologist  will  not  fail  to  discover  in 
it  some  ingredients  of  ambition,  self-interest,  or 
fanaticism. 

The  love  dwelling  in  the  human  heart  is,  after 
all,  only  finite,  therefore,  if  it  is  to  be  bestowed 
upon  millions,  especially  potential  millions,  the 
fraction  obtainable  by  the  single  individual  will  be 
infinitesimal.  The  really  golden  hearts — true,  al- 
truistic, unselfish  emotions  and  unreasoning  love 
— are  only  to  be  found  among  the  benefactors  of 
individuals  ;  among  those  who  devote  themselves 
to  a  limited  number,  those  who  work  in  the 
silence  of  obscurity,  not  in  the  glare  of  publicity  or 
history.  Such  a  modest,  real  love  is  never  the 
appanage  of  the  would-be  saviour  of  a  class,  of  a 
race,  a  nation,  or  any  other  collectivity.     All  such 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     175 

benefactors,  be  they  labelled  Socialists,  National- 
ists, Pan-Germans,  Pan-Slavs,  Zionists  et  tutti 
quanti,  who  dream  of  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
millions,  though  cold  and  indifferent  to  the  suffer- 
ings of  individuals,  are  not  altruists,  sentimenta- 
lists or  idealists,  they  are  merely  dry-as-dust 
intellectuals,  if  they  be  not  egoists.  To  love  the 
parts  constituting  the  whole  is  within  human 
possibility,  but  to  love  the  whole  whilst  despising 
the  parts  makes  such  a  love,  if  love  it  can  be 
called,  a  mere  emptiness.  The  soldier  fighting  in 
the  trenches  and  dying  on  the  battlefield  is  doing 
so  because  he  loves  his  home  and  hearth,  his  wife 
or  sister,  his  mother  or  his  children,  not  the  poten- 
tial children  of  future  generations.  Men  have 
also  died,  and  are  dying,  for  an  idea  ;  but  this  is 
because  that  idea  has  become  a  part  of  their  very 
being,  their  precious  spiritual  inheritance  or  pos- 
session. 

Bakunin  and  Marx,  the  Slav  and  the  Teuton, 
clearly  illustrate  the  above  statements.  The 
former,  endowed  with  the  simplicity  of  a  child, 
was  animated  by  a  real,  unbounded  love  for 
the  individual;  the  latter,  a  would-be  bene- 
factor of  a  class,  was  an  intellectual  machine  of 
the  finest  type  :  "a  scientific  demagogue,"  "  the 
incarnation  of  a  democratic  dictator,"  as  Bakunin 
rightly  said.^  Space  does  not  permit  the  elabora- 
tion of  these  points,  but  an  impartial  study  of 
the  psychology  of  races  and  nations  shows  that 
it  was  Germany  who  inoculated  the  world  with 
the  virus  both  of  love  and  hatred  of  collectivity. 
Germany   is   the   home    of    such     movements   as 

1  Pr^audeau,     Bakunine    et    V  Internationale,     Paris,     1911, 
p.  37. 


176        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

'*  Scientific  Socialism,"  the  *'  Internationale," 
*'  Antisemitism,"  and  many  other  "  philisms  "  and 
""  phobisms." 

Even  in  their  plans  for  the  realisation  of  the 
social  revolution,  Marx  and  Bakunin  counted  upon 
different  elements.  The  German  looked  to  those 
who  were  sufficiently  educated  to  understand  the 
scientific  bases  of  his  system,  whilst  the  Russian 
appealed  to  those  who  craved  most  for  liberty. 
Marx  believed  that  the  nation  that  would  first 
give  the  signal  for  the  social  revolution  would  be 
the  State  that  was  farthest  advanced — Germany, 
for  instance.  (He  seems,  however,  to  have  changed 
his  views  altogether  after  his  sojourn  in  England.) 
Bakunin,  on  the  contrary,  was  of  opinion  that 
the  nation  most  richly  endowed  with  the  spirit  of 
revolt  and  the  instinct  of  liberty  would  be  the 
first  to  give  the  signal.  He  did  not  believe  that 
the  Teutonic  races  possessed  this  instinct  of 
liberty,  they  are  so  essentially  authoritative  ;  but 
it  was  fully  developed  in  the  Latin  and  Slavonic 
races. 

This  belief  explains  why  Bakunin  took  sides 
with  France  during  the  Franco-Prussian  war  of 
1870.  He  addressed  a  passionate  appeal  to  the 
members  of  the  ''  Internationale,"  especially  to  the 
Swiss,  calling  upon  them  to  take  up  arms  and  to 
intervene  in  favour  of  the  French  Republic  which 
had  just  been  proclaimed.  France  represented 
liberty  in  Europe,  whilst  "  Germany  was  the 
common  enemy  of  all  European  socialists,"  for 
she  "  incarnated  despotism  and  reaction."  Ba- 
kunin, the  champion  of  liberty,  to  whom,  para- 
doxical as  it  may  sound  of  this  atheist,  he  had 
erected  a  shrine,  hated  Germany  as  much  aiS  he 


Karl  Marx, 


17G] 


I 


PHILOSOPHERS    AND    SOCIOLOGISTS     177 

loved  France.  "  Ce  Russe,"  wrote  A.  Richard, 
''  cet  anarchiste,  cet  ennemi  des  patries  .  .  .  con- 
naissait  bien  I'histoire  de  1' esprit  fraii9ais,  le  genie 
de  la  Revolution  Fran9aise.  II  aimait  la  France, 
et  bien  plus,  il  epousait  les  haines  de  la  France, 
et  soufirait  de  son  abaissement."  ^  But  what 
was  it  that  interested  Bakunin  in  France  ?  Cer- 
tainly not  her  political  power,  not  the  State. 
It  was  neither  Imperial  nor  Royalist  France, 
not  even  Republican  France,  that  he  cared  for  ; 
it  was  the  great  national  character,  the  French 
spirit,  the  generous  and  heroic  instincts,  the 
revolutionary  audacity  that  had  dared  to  pull 
down  all  the  authorities  sanctioned  and  fortified 
by  history,  all  the  old  gods  and  idols.  It  was 
this  French  iconoclasm,  so  vastly  different  to 
the  Teuton  vandalism,  that  Bakunin  so  greatly 
admired. 

"  If  we  were  to  lose"  (he  wrote)  "  this  great  his- 
torical nation  which  is  called  France,  if  it  were 
to  disappear  from  the  arena  of  the  world,  or,  what 
is  still  worse,  were  now  to  be  dragged  down  into 
the  mud  to  live  as  the  slave  of  Bismarck,  the 
world  would  be  the  poorer  and  a  great  void  would 
ensue  ;  it  would  be  more  than  a  national  catas- 
trophe, it  would  be  a  misfortune,  a  universal 
debacle." 

For  then,  the  German  State,  authoritative  and 
reactionary  yar  excellence,  would  make  Europe 
feel  its  power,  and  crush  liberty  wherever  it  raised 
its  head.  The  German  people  have  no  instinct  of 
liberty.  They  even  found  means  to  transform 
the  ''  Internationale "  into  a  Sozial-democratie  ! 
Therefore  it  was  the  sacred  duty  of  every  man 

1  Bivu6  de  Paris,  1896,  S6ptembre-Octobre,  p.  148. 
12 


178        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

who  loved  liberty  and  was  anxious  to  see  humanity 
triumph  over  brutality,  of  every  man  who  cared 
for  the  emancipation  of  his  own  country,  to  come 
forward  and  take  part  in  the  struggle  of  democracy 
against  German  despotism. 


1 


CHAPTER    IX 

PEACEFUL    PROPAGANDA 

As  we  have  seen,  even  during  the  despotic  reign 
of   Nicholas    I,    the    socialistic    ideas    of   Western 
Europe  had  found  their  way  into  Russia.     With 
the  accession  of  Alexander  II,  when  the  Press  was 
given  a  little  more  freedom,  many  foreign  works 
were  translated  into  Russian,  and  thus  were  more 
readily    accessible    to    the    people.     The    authors 
mostly    en    vogue    were    Spencer,    Darwin,    Mill, 
Buckle,   Fourier  and  St.   Simon.     The  ideas  and 
theories    elaborated    by    these    authors    w^ere    the 
starting  points  for  Russian  writers  and  publicists.^ 
The  revolutionary  groups  included  not  only  the 
nobility   and   officers,    but   officials   and   students 
belonging  to  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  lower  strata 
of  society  ;   they  were  men  who  hated  the  existing 
order  of  things  with  their  intelligence  and  with 
their    hearts.     They    hated   autocracy,    not    only 
intellectually  and   aesthetically,  but   instinctively, 
as  a  slave  hates  oppression  and  thirsts  for  free- 
dom ;    their  instinct  told  them  to  hate  the  one 
and  to  love  the  other.     Any  human  emotion  that 
is  dictated  by  cold  intellect   is  at   its  best   only 
artificial. 

The  true  emotions  are  those  dictated  by  instinct 

1  Kulcyzki,  vol.  i,  p.  294. 
179 


180         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and  impulse.  Thus  the  new  intellectuals  of  Russia, 
who  belonged  to  the  middle  classes,  hated  auto- 
cracy, not  only  with  their  intellects,  but  also  with 
their  hearts.  The  result  was  that  they  did  not 
only  discuss,  plan,  theorise,  criticise  and  philoso- 
phise, but  they  also  began  to  prepare  for  action. 
They  stood  nearer  the  masses  than  the  aristo- 
crats of  1825  had  done  ;  they  relied  not  only  upon 
their  own  power  and  energy,  but  also  upon  the 
people.  The  most  prominent  leaders  of  the  social 
and  political  movement  of  those  days  were 
Tshernyshevski,  and  later,  Lavrov  and  Bakunin. 
Tshernyshevski's  ideas  of  socialism  and  his  plans 
for  the  solution  of  the  agrarian  question  were  the 
starting  point  of  all  revolutionary  programmes  of 
the  'sixties  onwards. 

The  Russian  intellectuals  now  earnestly  devoted 
themselves  to  gaining  support  from  the  people, 
who  alone  were  truly  able  to  bring  about  an  up- 
heaval in  Russia.  They  endeavoured  clearly  to 
formulate  their  demands,  to  express  their  political 
tendencies  and  desires  in  proclamations,  to  predict 
the  revolution,  and  even  to  urge  it.  The  spirit 
of  revolt  was  at  last  entering  the  realm  of  reality. 
M.  J.  Mikhailov  published  his  proclamation  ad- 
dressed to  the  young  generation  in  1861,^  and  for 
this  crime  he  was  condemned  to  six  years'  penal 
servitude.  The  proclamation  was  followed  by 
the  first  number  of  the  revolutionary  periodical 
Velikoruss,  or  "  The  Great  Russian."  Openly 
and  in  passionate  language  the  revolution  was 
preached ;  the  writers  addressing  themselves  to 
the  peasants  and  to  the  intellectuals.  The  aboli- 
tion of  autocracy  and  the  solution  of  the  agrarian 

1  Cf.  Byloe,  1906,  i,  pp.  101-132. 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  181 

question  were  clearly  formulated  demands,  and 
numerous  agitators,  with  a  superb  contempt  for 
danger,  prison,  exile  or  death,  busily  devoted 
themselves  to  the  spreading  far  and  wide  of  their 
revolutionary  propaganda,  while  Colonel  Kranovski 
and  Lieutenant  Grigoriev  incited  the  soldiers 
against  the  Government  and  the  Tsar.^ 

The  Universities  became  a  very  hotbed  of  revo- 
lutionary propaganda.  With  the  enthusiasm  and 
impulsiveness  of  youth  the  Russian  students  threw 
themselves  into  the  revolutionary  movement.  In 
1862  a  new  revolutionary  organisation  was  founded  ; 
it  was  known  as  the  League,  of  "  Land  and  Free- 
dom," "  Zemlya  i  Volya."  Its  activity  consisted 
principally  in  spreading  revolutionary  ideas  among 
the  intellectuals,  and  its  members  were  recruited 
mostly  from  the  various  groups  of  officers,  lawyers, 
civil  engineers,  medical  practitioners,  officials, 
teachers,  litterateurs  and  students.  The  demands 
and  aims  of  the  organisation  were  :  political  free- 
dom, transformation  of  Russia  into  a  federal  state 
and  the  partition  of  the  land  among  the  peasants.* 
These  demands,  however,  made  any  union  between 
the  various  social  groups  almost  an  impossibility. 
The  nobles  could  not  agree  with  the  advanced 
revolutionaries,  who  believed  that  the  discontent 
of  the  peasants  should  be  stimulated  and  used  to 
bring  about  a  revolution. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  industrial  and  mercantile 
bourgeoisie  were  too  ignorant  and  too  suspicious 
to  understand  and  appreciate  the  plans  and  aspira- 
tions  of  the  intellectuals.     Both  the  urban   and 

^  Basilevski,  Political  Crimes  in  Russia  during  the  Nineteenth 
Century,  i,  p.  117. 
3  Panteleev,  pp.  256-266, 


182         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

rural  populations  were  vaguely  discontented,  but 
their  discontent  was  chiefly  directed  against  the 
seigneurs,  landowners  or  mighty  capitahsts,  not 
against  the  Government,  autocracy  or  the  Tsar. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  so-called  bourgeoisie  was 
greatly  attached  to  and  had  real  confidence  in  the 
Tsar  and  the  Central  Government,  and  hoped  for 
the  best.  It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
emancipation  of  the  serfs  and  the  subsequent 
abuses  were  questions  that  but  little  concerned 
the  merchants  and  industrial  classes.  They  har- 
boured none  of  the  grievances  of  the  aristocracy 
who  had  been  deprived  of  their  privileges,  nor  of 
the  peasants  who  had  been  disappointed  in  their 
expectations. 

Thus  the  revolutionary  movement  was  limited 
to  the  intellectuals,  and  even  they  were  not  united 
into  one  well-organised  body.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  Government  was  a  strict  watch-dog,  so  the 
danger  was  great ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the 
members  were  mostly  dreamers,  theoreticians,  not 
experts  or  artisans  capable  of  bringing  about  a 
revolution.  Besides,  their  scattered  groups  lacked 
one  recognised  leader.  The  only  man  whom  every 
one  would  have  accepted  as  a  leader  was  Tsherny- 
shevski,  but  he  had  decided  to  be  as  careful  as  was 
possible. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  leaders  of  the 
organisation  Zemlya  i  Volya  was  Nicholas  Serno- 
Solovyevitsh  ;  he  elaborated  a  plan  for  a  Russian 
Constitution.  Zemlya  i  Volya  was  not  socialistic, 
although  many  socialists  were  among  its  members. 
Russia  was  not  yet  ripe  for  true  socialistic  organisa- 
tions ;  indeed,  it  is  doubtful  if  she  is  even  now.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  in  the  early  'sixties  the 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  183 

factory  and  working  men,  the  proletariat,  was  not 
at  all  developed  ;  the  peasants  cannot  be  styled 
proletariat ;  and,  in  any  case,  their  psychology  differs 
greatly  from  that  of  the  working  men/  However, 
the  Zemlya  i  Voyla,  in  the  course  of  time,  would 
have  managed  to  spread  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment ideas,  not  only  among  all  the  scattered  groups 
and  individuals  of  the  intelligenzia,  but  also  among 
the  peasants  and  working  men,  and  so  unite  the 
warring  elements  and  direct  them  into  one  channel, 
and  thus  centralise  the  various  streams  of  dis- 
content prevailing  in  the  Empire  of  the  Tsar. 

But,  unfortunately,  different  circumstances  frus- 
trated the  realisation  of  these  hopes.  The  (Govern- 
ment and  the  police  were  informed  of  the  existence 
of  the  organisation  in  June  1862.  The  third 
section  of  the  Imperial  Chancellery,  the  political 
police,  arrested  a  certain  Paul  Victoshin,  who  was 
returning  to  Russia  from  a  visit  to  London.  Many 
compromising  documents,  including  letters  from 
Herzen  to  various  revolutionary  leaders  in  Russia, 
were  found  among  his  possessions.  Among  the 
names  mentioned  in  the  correspondence  was  that 
of  Tshernyshevski,  who  was  just  then  on  the  point 
of  leaving  the  capital  for  his  native  town  Saratov, 
whither  he  had  already  sent  his  family.  On 
July  7th,  1862,  Tshernyshevski  was  arrested  and 
sent  to  the  fortress  of  Petropavlovsk.  Shortly  be- 
fore his  arrest,  an  adjutant  of  Prince  Suvarov,  the 
Governor -General  of  St.  Petersburg,  called  upon 
him  and  advised  him  to  go  abroad,  as  otherwise 
he  would  be  imprisoned.  But  Tshernyshevski 
refused  to  take  the  hint.  On  the  one  hand,  he  was 
too  deeply  attached  to  the  work  he  had  taken  up, 

1  K\ilcyzki,  i,  p.  372. 


184         THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and  on  the  other,  he  felt  quite  sure  that  the  Govern- 
ment could  find  nothing  against  him,  he  had 
always  been  so  careful  and  prudent. 

Both  Tshernyshevski  and  Serno-Solovyevitsh 
were  arrested  on  July  7th,  1862.  The  arrest  of 
Tshernyshevski  was  a  terrible  blow  to  the  revo- 
lutionary movement,  and  the  efforts  of  "  Land 
and  Freedom  "  to  unite  and  concentrate  all  the 
revolutionary  forces  in  Russia  were  henceforth 
almost  futile.  There  was  no  leader  powerful 
enough  to  command  respect  and  strong  enough  to 
gather  all  the  threads  into  his  hands.  There  was 
no  one  among  all  the  revolutionary  intellectuals 
who  could  equal  Tshernyshevski  in  political  in- 
sight, social  understanding,  erudition  and,  above 
all,  personal  influence.  Some  of  the  members, 
among  them  Pantaleev,  reorganised  the  committee 
of  "  Land  and  Freedom "  and  endeavoured  to 
continue  their  propaganda  among  the  students 
and  officers,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  proved 
very  effective. 

In  the  meantime  an  event  happened  that  for  a 
time  at  least  put  a  stop  to  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment in  Russia.  This  was  the  Polish  Revolution 
of  1863-64.  The  insurrection  of  the  Poles,  which 
the  Russian  autocracy  quelled  with  all  the  cruelty 
and  bloodshed  of  which  it  was  capable,  became 
the  signal  of  a  reactionary  era.  The  Polish  Revolu- 
tion provided  the  Government  with  an  excuse  for 
many  reactionary  measures.  But  no  persecution 
could  now  put  an  effectual  stop  to  the  revolutionary 
movement  in  Russia.  It  spread,  slowly  but 
gradually,  among  the  intellectuals  and  students. 
In  I- order  to  escape  the  cruel  persecutions  of  Tsar- 
dom,   numbers    of  the  intellectuals  went  abroad, 


PEACEFUL  PROPAGANDA  185 

especially  to  Switzerland,  where  the  Russian 
revolutionary  agitators  found  a  new  stimulus  in 
the  work  and  influence  of  the  Western  socialist 
movement  and  literature.  At  home,  in  Russia,  it 
was  a  terrible  struggle  between  Tsardom  and  the 
spirit  of  revolt. 

Yet,  though  the  Government  of  the  Tsar  was 
bitterly  severe  against  all  revolutionary  efforts,  and 
sent  to  prison,  or  Siberia,  all  those  whom  it  found 
guilty  of  revolutionary  ideas  or  propaganda,  it 
introduced  a  number  of  minor  reforms.  These 
chiefly  affected  the  judicial,  financial  and  military 
administrations ;  an  effort  was  also  made  to 
establish  local  self-government  in  the  districts  and 
provinces,  known  as  the  Ziemstvos.  The  object 
of  these  reforms  was  to  show  Russia  and  Europe 
that  the  Tsar  was  really  inclined  to  be  liberal,  and 
that  if  he  were  severe  towards  the  Poles  and  the 
revolutionaries,  it  was  with  a  bleeding  heart  that 
he  punished  his  beloved  children.  The  Govern- 
ment had  decided  to  show  Russia  that  it  was 
neither  reactionary  nor  weak  ;  that  the  Tsar  was 
the  real  father  of  his  subjects  and  knew  what 
they  needed.  He  was  solicitous  for  their  welfare 
and  well-being,  and  had  decided  to  grant  all  the 
necessary  reforms.  But  though  he  gave  with 
the  one  hand,  he  would  not  hesitate  to  punish 
with  the  other. 

The  liberal  measures  were  more  fatal  to  the 
development  of  the  revolutionary  movement  in 
Russia  than  the  punishments  of  prison  and  exile. 
The  reforms  continued  from  1863  until  1870  ;  it 
was  a  period  of  struggle  for  the  revolutionaries, 
who  had  come  to  understand  that  autocracy  would 
always  crush  with  her  left  hand  whatever  semblance 


186         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

of  liberty  she  gave  with  her  right.  They  had 
given  up  all  hope  of  ever  receiving  anything  from 
Tsardom  or  Autocracy.  "  Timeo  Danaos  et  dona 
ferentes."  But  society  was  satisfied  with  the 
reforms  and  sang  the  praises  of  the  Tsar.  Thus, 
Alexander's  liberalism  was  more  fatal  to  the  spirit 
of  revolution  than  Nicholas'  open,  reactionary  and 
autocratic  attitude  had  been.  It  is  the  old  story 
of  the  traveller,  the  sun  and  the  wind. 

I  have  already  said  that  there  was  no  leader 
who  could  unite  the  scattered  forces  of  revolution. 
Herzen  was  abroad,  and  his  influence  at  home  was 
on  the  wane.  Bakunin,  at  that  time,  was  a  cos- 
mopolitan revolutionary,  and  paid  but  little  atten- 
tion to  events  in  his  own  country.  Tshernyshevski 
was  in  prison.  The  Government  knew  well  how 
dangerous  Tshernyshevski  was,  and  determined  to 
get  rid  of  him.  There  were  no  proofs  against  him, 
but  that  was  a  trifling  matter.  Forged  incriminat- 
ing documents  were  produced,  false  witnesses 
appeared,  and,  in  spite  of  Tshernyshevski' s  clever 
defence  and  his  declaration  that  the  documents 
were  forged  and  the  witnesses  false,  the  Senate 
condemned  him  to  fourteen  years'  penal  servitude, 
to  loss  of  all  his  civil  rights  and  perpetual  exile  to 
Siberia.  Alexander  reduced  the  fourteen  years  to 
seven  years'  penal  servitude.  It  was  while  he  was 
in  prison  that  Tshernyshevski  wrote  his  famous 
novel,  Tshto  Dyelatj  {What  Shall  We  Do?) 

The  revolutionary  ferment  continued,  and  it 
was  about  this  time  that,  by  the  side  of  socialistic 
tendencies,  the  new  current  of  revolt  known  as 
Nihilism  developed.  In  1865  a  small  organisation 
was  formed  at  Moscow  with  the  object  of  spreading 
socialist    propaganda.     This    propaganda    was    to 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  187 

be  spread  among  the  rural  population,  to  convince 
them  that  the  land  was  the  rightful  property  of 
the  people.  The  members  of  the  group  had  de- 
cided to  incite  the  peasants  against  the  land- 
owners and  the  authorities.  They  also  intended 
to  found  schools,  libraries,  co-operative  factories, 
etc.,  so  as  to  get  in  closer  touch  with  the  people.^ 
But,  as  usual,  the  members  greatly  differed  as  to 
the  means  to  be  employed.  Some,  like  Matinin 
and  his  friends  (known  as  the  Matinintsi)  and 
Sobello  and  his  friends  (known  as  the  Saratovtsi), 
were  in  favour  of  spreading  propaganda  among  the 
people  ;  thus  they  hoped  to  bring  about  a  revo- 
lution. 

Others,  known  as  the  Ipatovstsi,  and  among 
whom  were  Ishutin  and  Karakasov,  were  for  bolder 
and  more  energetic  methods :  they  desired  the 
assassination  of  the  Tsar.  Ishutin  went  to  St. 
Petersburg  and  decided  to  form  out  of  a  few  of 
his  most  intimate  friends  a  new  group  to  be 
known  as  "  The  Hell,"  whose  aim  should  be  to 
undertake  the  immediate  and  direct  fight  against 
the  Government,  employing  terrorist  methods. 
One  of  Ishutin' s  followers  was  Karakasov,  a  young 
man  of  twenty-five.  He  decided  to  kill  Alex- 
ander in  spite  of  the  protests  of  his  comrades,  w^ho 
believed  that  the  propitious  moment  had  not  yet 
arrived  for  such  drastic  methods.  Karakasov 
was  a  member  of  a  noble  family  and  had,  as  a 
student,  been  expelled  from  the  University.  Being 
both  impulsive  and  obstinate,  he  ignored  the  advice 
of  his  comrades,  and  on  April  4th,  1866,  he 
fired  at   Alexander   in  the   Summer   Garden,    but 

1  Cf.  Basilevski,  vol.  i,  pp.    138-141  ;    Byloe,    1906,   iv,  pp. 
290-296. 


188         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

missed  the  Tsar,  because  a  peasant,  named  Komis- 
sarovo,  caught  his  arm  as  Jhe  raised  it  to  fire. 

The  shot  fired  by  Karakasov  was  the  signal  for 
new  reactionary  measures  ;  indeed,  it  was  a  turn- 
ing point  in  Russia's  internal  poHcy.  The  Govern- 
ment now  became  openly  reactionary,  whilst 
Russian  society  loudly  manifested  its  loyalty. 
Fear  is  a  wonderful  stimulus  of  patriotism  and 
loyalty.  Arrests  followed  en  masse;  the  revo- 
lutionaries were  tried  and  sentenced  by  the  famous 
Mouraviev,  who  had  quelled  the  Polish  Revolution 
in  1863,  had  distinguished  himself  by  his  cruelties 
in  Lithuania,  and  who  wais  known  as  the  butcher  of 
Vilna.^  The  government  now  declared  that  the 
revolutionary  movement  was  a  menace  to  right, 
property  and  religion,  and  that  the  liberal  inten- 
tions of  the  Tsar  had  been  misunderstood  and 
misinterpreted.  Henceforth,  the  Government, 
relying  upon  the  aristocracy  and  the  conservative 
elements  of  the  State,  would  take  energetic  and 
severe  measures  against  all  revolutionary  ten- 
dencies. 

It  kept  its  word.  Basilevski  relates  (v,  p.  88) 
that  Karakasov  appealed  to  the  Tsar  and  asked 
him  to  commute  his  death  sentence.  The  reply 
was,  that  as  a  man  the  Tsar  pardoned  the  prisoner, 
but  as  a  ruler  it  was  impossible  that  he  should 
commute  the  death  sentence.  Karakasov  was 
accordingly  hanged  on  September  3rd,  1866. 
Ishutin  was  also  condemned  to  death,  and  he  too 
appealed  to  the  Tsar.  The  prisoner  was  already 
upon  the  scai^old  and  the  executioners  were  ready 
with  the  rope  when  the  Imperial  answer  in  the 
affirmative  arrived.     When  one  reflects  upon  the 

1  Cf.  Basilevski,  i,  p.  250. 


PEACEFUL  PROPAGANDA  189 

refined  cruelty  and  torture  of  this  incident,  and 
remembers  that  Alexander  II  was  the  most  liberal 
and  generous  of  all  the  Romanovs,  any  spark  of 
pity  for  Nicholas  II  dies  in  one's  breast.  Thus, 
from  1866  reaction  was  once  more  in  full  swing 
in  Russia,  and  the  revolutionary  movement,  though 
continuing  to  live,  went  through  a  period  of  com- 
parative calm. 

But  the  spirit  of  revolt  w^as  still  in  existence, 
even   though   its   wings   had   been   clipped.     The 
spark  of  revolution  still  glimmered  under  the  ashes, 
and  it  only  required  a  stimulus  to  fan  it  into  flame. 
Two  circumstances  were  especially  calculated  to 
favour  the  renascence  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment :     the   great    spread    of  Western   European 
socialism   and   the    large   increase   in   emigration. 
Western  European  socialism  flourished  during  the 
years   1863-71.     Lassalle  founded  his  workmen's 
associations  and  Marx  the  "  Internationale,"  and 
social   democracy   was  in  full  swing  in  Germany. 
The  Paris  Commune  caused  quite  a  stir  in  Russia. 
All  these  socialistic  ideas,  in  perhaps  a  vague  and 
mystic    form,    filtered    through    into    Russia    and 
permeated  the  strata  of  Russia's  youth,  alTecting 
also,  to  some  extent,  the  peasantry  and  the  prole- 
tariat.    The  vivifying   breath   of   democracy  and 
revolutionary    movements    in    W^estern     Europe 
could  not   but  lend  new  vigour  to   Russia's   en- 
thusiasts, dreamers,  reformers  and  revolutionists. 
A  new  generation  grew  up — a  generation  that  felt 
that  the  time  for  deeds  had  arrived.     It  thirsted 
for  action,  for  facts,  for  the  creative  deed  that  would 
replace  the  word. 

Bat  although  every  one  felt  that  something  ought 
to  be  done,  no  one  knew  what  to  do,  and  there 


190         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

was  no  one  who  could  tell  them.  Great  numbers 
of  the  women  students,  intellectuals  to  whom  the 
Government  refused  admission  to  the  Universities, 
went  abroad  in  large  quantities,  but  the  revolu- 
tionary movement  was  still  fed  by  them.  The 
"  Internationale,"  founded  by  Marx,  exercised  a 
deep  moral  influence  upon  the  enthusiastic  Slavs. 
»  They  saw  in  it  a  concentration  of  all  the  social 
forces  of  the  world,  an  attempt  to  resuscitate 
humanity  to  new  life,  the  renascence  of  the  suffer- 
ing classes.  They  hoped  and  believed  that  the 
''  Internationale  "  would  find  new  means  and  ways, 
and  would  teach  them  to  carry  the  revolutionary 
movement  to  a  successful  issue  in  their  own 
country.^  As  yet,  however,  the  revolutionary 
elements  lacked  a  definite  programme,  an  answer 
to  the  question  ;    What  is  to  be  done  ? 

The  discontent  with  the  reactionary  Govern- 
ment increased  steadily  among  the  students  at  the 
Russian  Universities,  especially  at  the  capital.  At 
first,  the  unrest  among  the  students  was  more  of 
a  local,  private  character  ;  they  were  demanding 
certain  privileges.  But  the  revolutionary  elements, 
still  existing  though  scattered,  decided  to  utilise 
the  growing  discontent  of  the  students,  whose 
demands  were  refused  by  the  authorities,  and 
turn  it  into  a  political  channel. 

Sergei  Nietshaev,  professor  at  a  school  in  the 
capital,  was  especially  active  in  fanning  the  sparks 
of  revolt  among  the  students  into  a  steady  flame. 
He  left  the  capital  in  1869  and  went  to  Geneva, 
where  he  met  Bakunin,  who  introduced  him  into 
the  association  of  the  "  Internationale."  Niet- 
shaev was  an  energetic  agitator  ;   he  was  a  fanatic 

1  Cf.  Kulcyzki,  vol.  i,  p.  474. 


PEACEFUL  PROPAGANDA  191 

and  a  man  with  an  iron  will,  but  exceedingly 
ambitious.  How  often  has  ambition  been  the 
cause,  not  only  of  the  birth,  but  also  of  the  death 
of  popular  movements !  Nietshaev  persuaded 
Herzen  to  hand  over  to  him  the  charge  of  the  secret 
revolutionary  fund,  a  sum  of  about  £1,000. 
Everything  was  ready  in  Russia,  Nietshaev  pre- 
tended, for  a  revolution.  Bakunin  then  entrusted 
him  with  the  organisation  of  the  Russian  branch 
of  the  Internationale.  On  his  return  to  Russia, 
Nietshaev  founded  a  secret  society  whose  goal 
was  the  liberation  of  the  people  from  social 
misery.  This  organisation  was  supposed  to  be 
ruled  by  a  secret  committee,  which  in  reality  did 
not  exist,  and  Nietshaev  was  their  representative. 
He  persuaded  his  comrades  that  Russia  was 
honeycombed  with  secret  and  revolutionary 
societies.^ 

But  if  Nietshaev  was  ambitious,  so  also  was  one 
of  his  comrades,  a  certain  Ivanov.  The  two  had 
a  quarrel,  and  Nietshaev,  true  to  his  motto, 
"  The  end  sanctifies  the  means  " — which  he  had 
borrowed  from  Ignatius  Loyola — made  up  his 
mind  to  get  rid  of  Ivanov.  He  therefore  persuaded 
four  of  his  colleagues  that  Ivanov  was  a  dangerous 
man  and  must  be  removed,  or  the  organisation 
would  suffer.  The  result  was  that  Ivanov  was 
assassinated,  the  victim  of  fanaticism  and  ambi- 
tion, on  November  21st,  1869.  But  this  deed 
proved  the  undoing  of  the  organisation  ;  it  was 
discovered,  and  eighty-seven  members  were  arrested. 
Nietshaev  managed  to  escape  to  Switzerland,  but 
was  extradited  in  1872  as  a  common  criminal 
and  condemned  to  twenty  years'  penal  servitude. 

1  Cf.  Basilekvsi,  i,  pp.  163,  167,  183. 


192         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  Government  saw  an  opportunity  in  the  affair 
to  discredit  the  whole  revolutionary  movement, 
and  so  decided  to  make  the  trial  public.  But  it 
defeated  its  own  ends ;  society  condemned  the 
tactics  of  Nietshaev,  but  it  could  not  help  approv- 
ing and  applauding  his  theories.  We  may  dislike 
the  men  who  are  at  the  head  of  a  movement  and 
yet  appreciate  the  ideas  underlying  it.  The  trial 
of  the  accused  proved  an  excellent  propaganda 
for  the  spirit  of  revolt,  for  it  expounded  eloquently 
the  theories  of  the  revolutionaries  and  spread 
those  very  ideas  that  the  Government  was  so 
anxious  to  suppress.  All  the  accused  held  them- 
selves bravely  before  their  judges  and  gained  the 
whole-hearted  sympathy  of  their  audience,  who 
could  not  but  look  upon  them  as  martyrs  in  a 
great  and  sacred  cause.  The  students  were 
especially  struck  by  the  dignified  conduct  and 
noble  purpose  of  the  accused.  They  condemned 
Nietshaev  the  man,  but  they  admired  his  ideas. 
The  thirst  for  deeds  became  greater,  and  the  revo- 
lutionary tendencies  dormant  in  many  a  mind 
suddenly  awoke.  ^ 

The  Universities  and  Colleges  then  became  the 
chief  homesteads  of  revolt.  The  intellectuals  and 
students  saw  in  the  old  traditions  of  the  Russian 
Mir,  in  the  solidarity  of  the  rural  and  peasant 
communes,  the  seeds  of  socialism ;  they  therefore, 
decided  to  follow  the  programme  of  Western 
socialism,  to  get  into  closer  touch  with  the  people 
and  propagate  the  new  ideas  among  them.  Thus 
they  hoped  to  organise  a  powerful  revolutionary 
party,  which  one  day  would  be  strong  enough  to 
abolish  autocracy  and  bring  about  a  new  form  of 

1  Cf.  Debagori-Mokrievitsh,  Memoirs,  vol.  i,  p.  36. 


73 

o  t> 

M  o 

l-l  = 

O  i: 


>    ^ 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  193 

government.^  They  did  not  stop  to  consider 
whether  the  people  were  ready  for  these  ideas. 
The  enthusiasts  believed  in  the  moujik,  quite 
forgetting  that  his  mental  processes  and  outlook 
would  be  quite  different  to  their  own.  The  propa- 
gandists, pessimists  as  to  the  position  of  the  pea- 
sants, saw  their  readiness  for  a  revolution  in  too 
roseate  a  light.  They  never  thought  that  the 
revolutionary  spirit  among  the  peasants  was  like 
a  delicate  seed"  that  had  to  be  carefidly  tended 
and  watched  before  it  would  grow  up  and  bear 
fruit.  In  a  word,  they  built  their  hopes  upon  the 
golden  clouds  of  optimism  and  imagination.  They 
were  bitterly  disappointed  when  the  ideal  and  the 
real  came  face  to  face. 

Among  the  organisations  of  that  period  of  pro- 
paganda, the  most  famous  was  that  of  the  Tshai- 
kovtsi,  called  after  its  founder,  Nicholas  Tshaikovski. 
The  most  prominent  members  of  this  society,  whose 
goal  was  the  dissemination  of  revolutionary  ideas 
among  the  people,  were  Mark  Natanson  (exiled  to 
Siberia  in  1871),  Tshaikovski,  Peter  Kropotkin, 
Sergei  Kravtshinski,  Klemens,  Shishko,  Sinegoul, 
Tikhomirov,  the  two  sisters  Kornilov,  Sophie 
Perovskaya  and  Obodovskaya.  The  members  of 
this  society,  disguised  as  peasants  and  labourers, 
went  among  the  people,  working  with  them  in 
factories  and  the  fields.'  They  did  so,  either  to 
get  acquainted  with  the  people  or  to  stir  up  their 
consciousness,  their  feeling  of  justice,  and  thus 
prepare  them  for  a  revolution,  or,  more  enthusiastic 
still,  to  prepare  them  for  an  immediate  revolution. 

1  Cf.  Calendar  Narodnaja  Volya,  1883,  p.  102. 

2  Cf,  Stepniak,  Underground  Russia  ;    ICropotkin,  Memoirs  of 
a  Revolutionary. 

13 


194         THE   RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

But  the  results  far  from  realised  the  hopes  of  the 
propagandists.  They  only  convinced  themselves 
that  the  people  were  not  ready  for  any  immediate 
action,  that  the  spirit  of  revolt  was  latent  in 
the  moujik,  but  his  ignorance  and  resignation  were 
obstacles  in  the  Avay  of  a  revolution.  The  propa- 
gandists then  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
people  would  have  to  be  educated,  taught  to 
understand  and  realise  their  aspirations,  their 
miserable  position  and  their  rights.  Thus  the 
period  of  propaganda,  of  going  among  the  people, 
that  had  appeared  quite  futile  to  some,  had,  after 
all,  served  a  very  useful  purpose  :  it  taught  the 
youths,  the  students,  the  mental  condition  of  the 
lower  classes,  of  the  people. 

There  is  one  characteristic  trait  of  this  period. 
The  spirit  of  revolt  had  been  shifted  in  the  course 
of  time  to  a  diiierent  milieu.  We  have  seen  how 
at  first  it  was  latent  among  the  Cossacks  and  the 
serfs,  when  it  manifested  itself  in  the  form  of 
Jacqueries  and  peasant  risings,  and  the  revolts  of 
Stenka  Eazin  and  Pougatshev  ;  later,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  it  had  found 
supporters  and  followers  among  the  nobility  and 
officers,  as  in  1825.  Now  the  very  homestead  of 
revolt  was  in  the  Universities  and  Colleges,  whilst 
its  adepts  were  recruited  from  among  the  intel- 
lectuals, the  poets,  litterateurs  and  philosophers. 
We  also  witness  the  increased  participation  of  the 
Jews  and  women  in  the  movement.^ 

Nietshaev's  propaganda  had  indeed  failed,  but 
so  had  the  propaganda  of  the  word.  Yet  its  results 
Avere  not  to  be  despised  ;  the  ground  was  gradually 
being   prepared,   the  conflagration  was   spreading 

1  Le's  Nihilistes,  etc.,  1867. 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  195 

and  was  destined,  one  day,  to  devour  the  structures 
of  Tsardom,  or  autocracy,  and  sweep  the  house 
of  Romanov  from  the  arena  of  history.  The 
enthusiasm  and  self-sacrifice  that  animated  those 
noble  vouths  should  have  made  the  Tsar  reflect. 
He  should  have  taken  warning,  but  he  did  not. 
A  generation  of  courageous  young  men  and  women 
who  would  sacrifice  their  own  personal  interests 
to  go  among  the  people  to  enlighten  them,  to 
teach  them  their  rights,  their  power  and  their 
strength  which,  like  a  flood,  can  overturn  every- 
thing, would  sufficiently  prepare  any  people  for  a 
revohition  and  general  rising. 

Influenced  by  the  ideas  coming  from  abroad,  the 
Russian  youth  of  that  day,  with  the  impression- 
ability characteristic  of  the  Slav,  threw  itself  whole- 
heartedly into  the  work  of  active  propaganda. 
They  went  among  the  people  {poshlee  v'narod). 
The  people  whom  they  did  not  know,  the  peasants 
who  to  them  were  a  terra  incognita,  they  idealised. 
The  Prussian  youth  went  out  into  the  promised 
land  of  the  moujik.  Regardless  of  mocking  re- 
marks, regardless  of  threats,  the  Russian  student 
gave  up  his  career,  his  future,  tore  himself  away 
from  his  family,  rubbed  his  face  with  butter  and 
then  exposed  it  to  the  sun  so  as  to  become  brown 
and  look  less  of  a  barin  (gentleman),  bathed  his 
hands  in  tar,  put  on  a  peasant  shirt,  threw  his 
knapsack  with  his  books  upon  his  shoulder,  took 
his  stick  and  went  out  on  his  journey  without  any 
fixed  goal.^  We  can  have  nothing  but  the  highest 
admiration  for  these  apostles  of  liberty,  these 
youths  who  went  out  to  preach  the  gospel  of 
human     dignity     and     individual     independence. 

1  Cf.  Obshtshina,  Geneva,  1878,  No.  I,  v,  4. 


196         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

No  obstacle  could  restrain  them ;  they  went 
everywhere,  they  lived  and  worked  among  the 
people. 

The  young  women,  especially,  left  their  homes 
and  worked  in  the  factories,  in  the  fields  and  in 
the  workshops  in  order  to  be  able  to  spread 
their  ideas  and  prepare  the  people  to  put  those 
ideas  into  practice.  But — alas  ! — the  result  was 
but  a  poor  one.  The  pilgrimage  of  these  enthusiasts, 
of  the  frail  women,  to  the  shrine  of  the  people 
was  without  real  effect.  One  needs  only  to  read 
the  articles  in  the  revolutionary  organs,  Vor- 
waerts  ( Vpered)  and  The  Commune,  to  be  convinced 
of  the  failure  of  the  agitators'  efforts  and  to  realise 
the  despair  that  consequently  took  hold  of  them. 
In  spite  of  the  enthusiasm  and  the  many  unheard- 
of  sacrifices,  the  propaganda  bore  but  little  fruit 
among  the  peasants.  The  Vorwaerts  relates  ^ 
how  the  peasants  often  denounced  these  young 
enthusiasts  and  gave  them  up  to  the  police. 

The  famous  Bereshkovskaya,  the  grandmother 
of  the  Russian  Revolution,  went  about  the  country 
dressed  as  a  peasant  woman  and  worked  among 
the  people  as  one  of  themselves.  The  moujiks 
listened  to  her,  because  the  rumour  had  spread 
among  them  that  she  was  the  Empress,  who  had 
thus  come  disguised  among  her  people.  Beresh- 
kovskaya heard  about  a  new  sect  in  the  south  of 
Russia.  She  went  there,  worked  among  the 
peasants  and  explained  her  ideas.  But  the  pea- 
sants replied  :  "  What  can  we  do  ?  It  is  God's 
will ;  we  will  pray  and  suffer,  for  such  is  the  will 
of  God  who  is  punishing  us  for  our  sins."  At  last 
they   even  threatened   to   hand   her   over  to   the 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  122. 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  197 

police.     A  little  later  she  was  denounced  to  the 
authorities  and  arrested. 

The  propaganda  had  proved  a  failure.  The 
agitators  had  too  little  knowledge  of  the  peasants  : 
discontent  was  rampant  among  the  latter,  but  they 
were  suspicious  and  distrustful  of  the  agitators. 
The  revolutionaries  learned  to  understand  that  the 
moujiks  were  still  far  from  realising  either  their 
wrongs  or  their  rights  as  men.  It  is  false  to  imagine 
that  the  numerous  arrests  had  frightened  the  brave 
apostles  of  freedom,  or  that  it  was  for  this  reason 
that  they  ceased  to  go  amongst  the  people.  Had 
they  found  an  echo  in  the  vast  forests  of  the 
peasantry,  had  they  found  the  moujik  ready  to  rise 
and  revolt,  they  would  not  so  easily  have  given  up 
the  work.  They  would  not  lightly  have  slackened 
their  efl  orts  and  the  battle  would  not  have  been 
given  up  as  lost,  but  they  saw  that  their  work  was 
futile ;  they  had  awakened  from  their  dream ; 
their  ideals  and  hopes  seemed  shattered,  and  they 
had  to  think  of  new  methods  and  new  weapons  for 
their  fight  against  Tsardom.^ 

Thus  the  chief  cause  of  the  failure  of  the  propa- 
ganda lay  in  the  apathy  of  the  people,  the  indif- 
ference of  the  rural  population  and  the  moujik. 
Yet  there  were  also  other  causes  underlying  this 
failure.  It  may  be  sought  also  in  the  lack  of 
unity  and  uniformity.  The  aims  of  those  who  went 
among  the  people  varied  ;  suspicious  of  mysterious 
committees  since  Nietshaev's  foul  deed,  they  acted 
independently  of  each  other.  The  Malikovtsi, 
founded  by  ^lalikov,  and  the  Lavristi,  were  in 
favour  of  peaceful  propaganda,  whilst  the  Buntari 
and  the  Tshaikovtsi,  believed  in  violent  methods. 

1  Cf.  Fortnightly  Review,  February  1905,  p.  390. 


198         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  latter  dreamed  of  a  new  world  founded  upon 
a  universal  brotherhood,  "  a  world  where  neither 
misery  nor  tears  would  exist." 

The  Government,  of  course,  was  not  idle.  In 
1878  several  of  the  propagandists  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  police,  and  in  1874,  in  consequence  of 
a  denunciation,  arrests  were  made  en  masse. 
Severe  measures  were  taken  by  autocracy  against 
the  secret  societies,  and  once  more  the  revolutionary 
movement  was  retarded  in  its  development.  In 
the  course  of  a  few  months  over  1,000  conspirators 
were  arrested.^  The  propagandists  realised  their 
mistake,  but  yet  they  had  learned  something  during 
their  pilgrimage  to  the  holy  shrine  of  the  people's 
soul :  they  had  learned  that  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe,  that  the  peasant  had  not  yet  reached  the 
necessary  phase  of  evolution  that  would  render 
him  accessible  to  socialistic  and  revolutionary 
propaganda.  On  the  one  hand  the  severe  measures 
taken  by  the  Government,  and  on  the  other  the 
deep  disappointment  caused  by  their  failure, 
induced  many  to  secede  from  the  revolutionary 
movement.  Upon  some,  however,  the  severity  of 
the  Government  had  the  opposite  effect :  it  in- 
creased their  decision  to  struggle  to  the  bitter  end  ; 
it  enhanced  their  courage  and  spirit  of  self-sacrifice. 

New  tactics  were  adopted.  The  organisation 
of  Semlya  i  Volya — Land  and  Freedom — was  re- 
vived. The  propagandists  had  learned  that  the 
peasants  were  discontented,  but  that  their  dis- 
content was  directed  chiefly  against  the  bureau- 
cracy and  the  landowners;  not  against  the  Tsar, 
whose  person  was  sacred  to  them.  Yet  the  mou- 
jiks,  though  ignorant,  were  not  without  common 
1  Biloe,  190(5,  No.  9,  pp.  269-76. 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  199 

sense  and  had  formed  ideals  and  ideas  of  their 
own.  They  desired  the  distribution  of  the  land 
and  the  abolition  of  rates  and  taxes.  The  latter 
should  be  levied  upon  human  work,  but  not  upon 
the  soil  that  had  been  created  by  God.  Such 
were  the  positive  demands  of  the  peasants  ;  these 
they  understood,  and  could  argue  with  shrewd 
common  sense  about  them.  Socialistic  or  anar- 
chistic ideas  and  ideals  and  abstract  theories  found 
no  echo  in  the  consciousness  of  the  moujik.  There- 
fore the  propagandists  decided  to  abandon  the 
Western  ideals  of  socialism  and  concentrate  their 
activity  upon  the  demands  and  requirements  of 
the  Russian  people.  The  propaganda  should  not 
be  of  a  nomadic  sporadic  nature,  but  of  a  per- 
manent character  ;  the  propagandists  would  settle 
permanently  in  the  villages  in  which  they  were 
to  agitate.  The  revolutionary  ideas  should  be 
spread,  not  only  among  the  peasants  but  also 
among  the  factory  hands  and  the  intellectuals. 

In  1876  several  old  members  of  the  Tshaikovtsi 
formed  a  new  group  ;  it  was  first  known  as  the 
Troglodytes,  or  Narodniki,  and  later,  in  1878  and 
1879,  after  their  organ,  Land  and  Freedom — 
Semlya  i  Volya.  Their  programme  insisted  upon 
the  propagandists'  settlement  among  the  people. 
The  members  maintained  that  there  were  a  num- 
ber of  revolutionary  elements  among  the  people, 
but  that  these  had  to  be  found  and  organised,  and 
then  the  fight  could  begin.  The  propaganda  of 
the  word  was  to  be  followed  by  the  propaganda 
of  the  deed.  This  was  about  the  time  that  Bakunin 
died  at  Berne,  July  1st,  1876,  and  Tkatshev 
founded  his  paper  Nabat,  or  The  Stormhelt,  at 
Zurich.     Tkatshev   was   in   favour   of  a   political 


200         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

revolution  instead  of  socialism.  He  also  reeom- 
mended  terrorism  instead  of  lukewarm  propa- 
ganda. He  criticised  sharply  the  systems  of 
Lavrov,  and  even  of  Bakunin,  in  an  essay  en- 
titled, Anarchy  of  Thought.  Tkatshev  was  a 
Jacobine  and  a  Blanquist,  but  his  ideas  found  no 
echo  among  his  compatriots  of  that  day. 

The  revolutionary  movement  and  its  ardour 
may  be  said  to  have  somewhat  abated  during  this 
period.  The  reasons  for  this  were  twofold.  The 
vigilance  of  the  police,  the  punishments,  prison  and 
exile  meted  out  to  the  revolutionaries  made  a 
more  intense  activity  difficult.  But  there  was  a 
more  psychological  cause  of  this  diminished 
activity,  and  that  was  the  Russo-Turkish  War. 
The  enthusiasm  of  Russia's  youth  had  found  a 
new  goal,  a  new  object,  a  new  field  for  its  energy. 
The  majority  of  the  socialists  in  Russia  were  against 
the  war,  but  theirs  were  but  voices  crying  in  the 
wilderness.  Youth  and  ardour  love  war,  and 
governments  know  well  how  to  picture  the  romance 
and  idealism  of  battles  in  glowing  colours  that 
will  appeal  to  the  heated  imagination  of  the  people, 
ignorant  and  educated  alike.  There  has  never 
been  a  war  in  the  history  of  the  world  which  has 
admittedly  been  fought  for  reasons  of  greed, 
revenge  or  ambition.  According  to  the  statements 
of  the  contemporary  governments  every  war  has 
been  a  war  of  ideas,  of  altruism,  a  war  for  the 
benefit  of  humanity  and  the  future  generations. 

The  war  of  1878  was  greeted  with  enthusiasm 
by  many  of  the  revolutionaries.  To  them  it  was 
a  holy  war,  a  war  for  the  liberation  of  their  Serbian 
and  Bulgarian  brethren  from  the  yoke  of  Russia's 
hereditary  enemy,  the  Turk.     Sometimes  it  seems 


PEACEFUL   PROPAGANDA  201 

to  one  to  be  a  pity  that  man  has  not  been  given 
the  power  of  foreseeing  the  future,  of  beholding  the 
world  as  it  will  be  a  century,  or  even  half  a  century 
hence.  What  a  shock  it  would  be  to  the  idealists 
and  dreamers  !  What  a  disappointment  to  the 
hosts  of  martyrs  and  men  of  action  who  fondly 
imagined  they  were  laying  the  foundations  of 
happiness  and  well-being  for  future  generations,  to 
see  those  very  people  scorn  and  laugh  at  the 
ideals,  political,  social  and  religious  for  which 
their  forebears  had  sufl  ered  and  bled  !  How  un- 
happy man  would  be  could  he  but  raise  the  veil 
of  Isis  and  take  peeps  into  the  future  I  He  would 
witness  scenes,  quite  natural  to  the  contemporaries, 
but  which  would  shock  and  appal  him  and  greatly 
alter  his  mode  of  life  and  thought.  Oh,  what  a 
waste  of  time  and  labour,  he  would  cry,  waste  of 
blood  and  happiness.  I  sacrificed  all  these  for 
the  future  generations,  and  lo,  they  are  not 
even  grateful,  but  throw  away  the  goods  I  be- 
queathed unto  them  for  valueless  baubles  ! 

Of  course,  such  a  revelation  of  the  future  w^ould 
always  be  a  shock  and  a  disappointment  to  the 
true  dreamers  and  idealists,  but  not  to  the  majority 
of  mankind.  The  majority  of  men  too  rarely 
fight  for  altruistic  motives  or  for  the  benefit  of 
future  generations.  If  the  Russian  enthusiasts 
of  1878  had  been  allowed  to  witness  the  events  of 
1915  and  see  the  Bulgarian  legions  sending  bullets 
into  the  hearts  of  the  descendants  of  the  very 
men  who  died  for  Bulgarian  liberty,  who,  for  a 
moment,  put  aside  Russia's  grievances  and  rallied 
around  autocracy,  European  history  might  have 
taken  a  difierent  course.  W^ith  equal  justice  we 
might  say  that  if  we  of  this  generation  were  able 


202         THE  RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

to  see  the  world  as  it  will  be  fifty  years  hence,  it 
w^ould  probably  give  us  much  food  for  thought, 
and  history  might  take  a  diiierent  course.  But, 
alas,  the  future  is  a  sealed  book,  the  veil  of  Isis 
cannot  be  lifted,  and  even  if  true  prophets  or  seers 
arise  in  our  midst  and  foretell  us  the  future,  we 
promptly  howl  them  down  and  declare  them  liars. 
If  we  go  no  further  and  do  not  stone,  crucify  or 
imprison  them,  at  least  w^e  do  our  best  to  hush 
up  their  prophecy,  spoken  or  written, 

Like  the  Crimean  War,  the  Balkan  War  proved  a 
failure.  Russia's  sacrifices  were  rewarded  by  the 
sweet  illusion  of  San  Stefano  and  the  rude  realism 
of  Berlin,  thanks  to  Bismarck.  Bureaucracy  that 
had  fanned  the  enthusiasm  for  war  into  flame 
gained  very  little,  but  the  revolutionary  spirit 
gathered  new  strength,  as  it  is  always  bound  to 
do  in  time  of  war,  and  as  has  always  been  the  case 
in  Russia,  especially  since  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 


CHAPTER  X 

REACTION  AND  TERRORISM 

Russia  of  1878,  as  ignorant  as  we  of  the  future, 
greeted  the  Balkan  War  with  enthusiasm.  The 
Slavophils  were  enthusiastic  over  the  freedom 
and  deliverance  of  their  Slavonic  brethren,  and 
their  ardour  was  fed  by  the  ideal  expansion  policy 
of  Panslavism,  or  Russian  Imperialism.  Bureau- 
cracy also  industriously  fanned  the  patriotic  flame 
into  war  ;  bureaucracy  always  gains  in  times  of 
national  stress.  Days  of  storm  and  strain,  of 
patriotic  ardour  and  national  sacrifice,  when 
every  one  will  submit  to  the  most  absurd  and  auto- 
cratic rulings  in  the  belief  that  they  are  in  the 
interests  of  the  country  and  that,  in  some  way, 
one  is  helping  the  nation  by  submitting  to  these 
measures,  these  are  halcyon  days  for  bureaucracy. 
Its  power  and  its  extravagance  daily  increase. 

Again,  Russian  bureaucracy  thought  that  the 
war  would  be  a  splendid  channel  into  which  the 
waters  of  discontent  could  be  turned  ;  a  bed  into 
which  the  sea  of  rebellion  could  discharge  its 
roaring  waves.  The  dreamers  and  revolutionary 
spirits  could  cool  their  burning  brows  safely  on  the 
battlefields.  The  bayonets  of  the  enemy  would 
open  a  vein  for  the  tempestuous,  delirious  Russian 
youth,  and  a  little  bloodletting  would  do  them  a 

203 


204         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

world  of  good.  So  thought  bureaucracy,  and 
therefore  it  urged  the  Emperor  to  go  to  war.  The 
superficial,  enthusiastic,  naive  liberals  rushed  to 
the  war  to  fight  for  Bulgaria's  freedom,  but  the 
more  far-sighted  revolutionaries  clearly  perceived 
that  the  war  was  merely  a  trap  laid  by  the  Russian 
bureaucracy.  The  results  of  the  war  did  not  com- 
pensate Russia  for  her  sacrifices.  Russia's  Im- 
perialism did  not  succeed  in  finding  an  aerie  on 
the  Bosphorus  for  the  eagle  of  the  Tsars.  And 
if  bureaucracy  and  Tsardom  had  hoped  to 
asphyxiate  revolution  in  the  powder  atmosphere 
of  Plevna,  to  drown  it  in  the  blood  oceans  in 
Serbia,  they  were  mistaken.  The  spirit  of  revolt 
rose  rejuvenated,  like  a  phoenix,  out  of  the  fire 
and  smoke  of  the  battlefields.  The  revolutionary 
spirit  had  gathered  new  strength  during  the  war, 
for  the  rottenness  of  the  existing  regime  had  been 
revealed  in  all  its  ugliness  and  hopelessness  ;  it 
had  proved  how  very  little  the  upper  governing 
classes  and  the  bureaucracy  cared  for  the  people, 
how  the  soldiers  who  had  gone  out  to  fight  had 
been  mercilessly  sacrificed  to  their  selfishness  and 
ambition.  The  dirty  water  was  grist  to  the  mill 
of  revolution. 

Meanwhile,  the  famous  trials  of  the  revolution- 
aries and  political  criminals  took  place  at  Moscow 
and  St.  Petersburg.  Fifty,  and  then  193  accused 
were  implicated.^  This  was  a  splendid  opportunity 
for  the  spirit  of  revolt.  The  revolutionaries  had 
not  been  permitted  to  announce  their  theories,  aims 
or  goal  publicly,  either  at  meetings  or  through 
the  press  ;  now,  they  were  able  to  proclaim  to  the 
public  in  their  speeches  of  defence  all  that  they 

1  Cf.  Lavigne,  I.e.,  p.  252. 


REACTION  AND  TERRORISM        205 

were  anxious  to  say.  They  turned  the  dock  into 
a  tribune  and  a  piibhc  platform.  The  nation 
heard,  and  for  the  first  time  learned,  the  truth 
about  it§  miserable  position,  of  the  failure  of 
the  reforms,  the  guilt  and  duplicity  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  the  absolute  necessity  for  a  revolution. 
Russia  heard  and  was  astonished.  The  Govern- 
ment kept  the  procedure  as  secret  as  possible ;  few 
were  admitted,  but  every  word  spoken  by  the 
accused,  the  reproaches  they  hurled  at  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  judges,  all  were  known  and  eagerly 
listened  to  by  the  public. 

On  January  23rd,  1879,  Alexander  signed  the 
sentence  of  the  political  criminals.  The  number 
of  people,  inclusive  of  witnesses,  implicated  in 
these  trials  has  been  estimated  at  3,800  ;  the 
accused,  including  their  accomplices,  were  770  ; 
193  alone  were  tried  at  St.  Petersburg.  Seventy 
died  during  the  long  months  of  the  trial ;  thirteen 
were  sent  to  penal  servitude  and  to  the  mines  ; 
a  number  were  set  free,  but  were  not  permitted  to 
enjoy  their  freedom,  various  administrative 
measures  being  taken  to  punish  them ;  others 
again  were  never  tried  at  all,  but  were  secretly 
arrested  and  dispatched,  no  one  knew  whither,  by 
the  Third  Section. 

On  the  day  following  the  announcement  of  the 
sentence  passed  upon  the  193  political  criminals. 
Vera  Sassoulitsh  shot  Trepov,  the  chief  of  police, 
at  St.  Petersburg.  Trepov,  six  months  previously, 
had  administered  corporal  punishment  to  a  poli- 
tical prisoner,  a  man  named  Bogdanovitsh,  and  it 
was  with  the  intention  of  revenging  this  ignominy 
that  this  Russian  Charlotte  Corday  acted ;  she 
had  gained  an  audience  by  pretending  that  she 


206         THE   RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

wished  to  hand  him  a  petition.  Her  shot  was  the 
signal  for  renewed  activity  on  the  part  of  the 
revolutionaries.  Yet  that  shot  also  found  a 
sympathetic  echo  in  the  society  of  the  day.  Vera 
had  fired  at  a  moment  when  the  public  was  feeling 
greatly  embittered  against  the  Government,  there- 
fore it  was  ready  to  greet  her  act  with  sympathy 
and  admiration,  to  hail  her  as  a  martyr  in  the 
struggle  of  humanity  against  brutality  and  op- 
pression. 

The  tables  were  turned.  It  was  not  Vera  now 
who  was  being  judged,  but  Trepov ;  and  not  only 
Trepov  the  man,  the  private  person,  but  Trepov 
the  incarnation  of  the  principle  of  administrative 
arbitrariness  and  autocratic  oppression.  The  eyes 
of  the  nation,  suffering  and  oppressed  while  its 
Government  claimed  to  be  doing  everything  pos- 
sible for  its  benefit,  were  opening  at  last.  The 
idea  of  terroristic  methods  gradually  grew  among 
the  revolutionaries.  Single  terroristic  acts  had 
already  taken  place,  but  the  spirit  of  revolt  did 
not  systematically  adopt  terrorism  until  1879. 
The  shot  fired  by  Vera  Sassoulitsh  seemed  to  be  a 
trumpet  call  to  the  revolutionaries  to  begin  active 
terrorism. 

Vera  was  acquitted  ;  it  seemed  that  Tsardom 
and  not  Vera  was  on  trial.  Truly  the  spirit  of  re- 
volt was  beginning,  at  last,  to  triumph.  Terrorism 
became  a  recognised  method  of  work,  and  even  the 
fashion.  Spies  met  their  just  deserts.  Baron 
Heyking,  colonel  of  gendarmes,  was  stabbed  at 
Kiev.  Valerian  Ossinski,  whom  Speranski  des- 
cribes as  the  Apollo  of  Revolution,  became  the 
leader  of  terrorism.  The  spirit  of  revolt  had  be- 
come desperate.     Pacific  propaganda  having  proved 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        207 

itself  useless,  it  now  adopted  violent  means.  If 
Tsardom  would  not  listen  to  reason,  then  it  would 
have  to  yield  to  terror.  Alexander  appealed  to 
the  public  and  called  upon  society  and  all  loyal 
citizens  to  help  the  Government  against  this 
terrorism.  But  Tsardom  had  no  friends.  It  was 
paying  the  penalty.  It  had  worked  to  create  in 
Russia  a  race  of  slaves,  not  free  citizens  ;  and  slaves, 
unless  they  have  willingly  accepted  the  spirit  of 
slavery,  are  never  the  friends  of  their  masters. 
"  The  days  when  the  Tsar  was  sacrosanct,"  were 
long  past.  The  belief  that  the  Tsar  was  the 
vicegerent  of  God  on  earth,  a  theory  so  care- 
fully developed  by  Karamsin,  was  now  held  by 
very  few  in  Russia.  The  spirit  of  revolt  was 
brooding  over  the  entire  nation.  Not  all  were 
vigorous  enough  to  help,  but  all  yearned  for  the 
deed  of  deliverance. 

Semlya  i  Volya  was  reorganised  by  Mik- 
hailov,  Sundelevitsh  and  others.  Tourgeniev,  who 
had  been  living  abroad,  now  visited  Russia  and 
was  heartily  lionised.  The  Government  looked 
askance  at  these  demonstrations  in  honour  of  the 
author  of  Fathers  and  Sons,  but  it  dared  not  arrest 
him ;  it  merely  advised  him  to  leave  Russia 
again. 

A  number  of  attempts  were  made  to  kill  Alex- 
ander. The  Government  answered  them  by  a 
system  of  repression  and  terrorism.  The  sus- 
picious followers  of  revolt  were  arrested  en  masse, 
sent  to  prisons,  the  mines,  Siberia  or  the  scafiold. 
The  fight  between  Tsardom  and  the  spirit  of 
freedom  became  an  open  one.  It  was  a  fierce  and 
bitter  struggle,  a  struggle  to  the  death.  Many 
brave  spirits  disappeared  and  were  swallowed  up 


208        THE  RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

by  the  revenge  of  autocracy,  in  the  desperate 
efforts  it  made  to  continue  its  existence. 

Valerian  Ossinski  died  on  the  gallows  at  Kiev 
on  May  14th  (26th),  1879.  Then  the  revolutionary 
camp  split  into  two  parties ;  the  organisation 
Semlya  i  Volya  divided  into  two  distinct 
sections  :  the  Terrorists  and  the  Social  Federal- 
ists. The  former  founded  the  Narodnaya  Volya 
(The  Will  of  the  People)  organisation ;  these 
aimed  at  carrying  terrorism  to  its  very  utmost. 
The  latter,  with  their  organ,  Tshornyi  Peredel, 
Black  Division,  w^ere  more  inclined  towards  again 
attempting  socialist  propaganda.  They  proposed 
to  form  the  rural  population  into  a  sort  of  Irish 
Land  League  and  thus  exercise  pressure  upon  the 
authorities  and  bring  about  a  social  upheaval  and 
transform  Russia  into  a  Federated  Republic. 
The  terrorists  had  the  upper  hand  ;  passion  always 
triumphs  over  words  of  moderation.  Besides,  the 
terrorists  declared  that  as  soon  as  the  then  State 
was  overthrown,  they  would  again  become  simple, 
peaceful  socialist  reformers.  This  they  honestly 
meant,  but,  nevertheless,  they  were  mistaken  in 
their  estimate  of  themselves.  The  venom  out- 
lives the  serpent. 

It  is  always  wrong  to  employ  terrorist  methods 
for  peaceful  purposes.  Even  Governments  have 
made  this  mistake.  They  imagine  that  they  may 
with  impunity  preach  hate  and  destruction,  and 
still  have  the  power  suddenly  to  say  :  Stop  !  it  is 
enough ;  now  it  is  time  to  love  !  Once  humanity 
has  grown  accustomed  to  hating,  it  cannot  learn 
overnight  to  love  what  it  has  well  hated.  The 
feeling  of  hate  will  take  long  to  make  way  for  that 
of  love.     Once  the  powers,  the  passions,   are  let 


n  B 

O   g 


o 


oo 
O 
&4 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM       209 

loose,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  control  them  again  ;  if 
they  find  nothing  of  the  old,  hated  order  to  des- 
troy, they  will  set  to  work  against  the  new  :  the 
feeling  of  destruction  is  so  powerful.  The  present 
state  in  Russia  and  the  present  war  well  illustrate 
this. 

Congresses  of  delegates  of  the  two  parties  were 
convened  at  Lipetsk  and  Voronezh  ;  among  others 
Mikhailov,  Zhelyabov,  Tikhomirov,  Fomenko, 
Shiriaev,  Goldenberg,  Sophie  Perovskaja  and  Vera 
Figncr  attended  them.  The  Narodnaya  Volya 
became  the  recognised  organ,  and  an  executive 
committee  of  the  revolutionaries  was  appointed  ; 
this  was  a  secret  organisation,  reminding  one  of 
the  ancient  Venetian  Republic.  The  programme 
of  Lipetsk  was  as  follows :  Universal  suffrage, 
freedom  of  conscience,  of  press  and  of  meeting  ; 
permanent  national  representative  assembly  ;  abo- 
lition of  standing  army ;  self-government  and 
autonomy  of  communities  ;  the  entire  land  to  be 
divided  among  the  peasants  and  the  factories 
among  the  workers.  As  Alexander  did  not  seem 
inclined  to  realise  this  programme,  the  committee 
condemned  him  to  death  on  August  26th,  1879. 

It  was  a  desperate,  let  us  even  say,  a  wrong 
step,  but  it  was  the  logical  outcome,  the  logical 
result  of  the  idea,  of  the  spirit  of  revolt  in  Russia 
that  Alexander  was  endeavouring  to  crush.  It 
was  war ;  the  belligerents  were  seeking  each 
other's  downfall.  The  fight  was  not  in  secret  but 
in  the  open.  Both  belligerents,  Tsardom  and  the 
spirit  of  revolution,  availed  themselves  of  the 
weapons  at  their  disposal.  If  Tsardom  has  a 
right,  said  the  revolutiona^ries,  to  send  our  men, 
women,  and  soldiers  to  the  mines,  the  dry  guillo- 

14 


210         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tine,  or  to  the  scaffold,  we,  too,  have  the  right  to 
fight  Tsardom  and  legally  declare  war  upon  it. 
If  we  are  not  allowed  to  make  our  demands  publicly, 
to  plead  for  democracy  openly  in  legislative 
assemblies,  in  parliaments  and  senates,  to  criticise 
the  Government  and  call  upon  it  to  answer,  if  we 
are  muzzled  and  throttled,  then  we  are  in  a  state 
of  self-defence.  The  man  attacked  by  evildoers 
who  intend  not  only  to  rob  but  also  to  kill  him, 
can  he  stop  to  consider  the  delicacies  of  conscience 
and  scruple  about  the  choice  of  a  weapon  with 
which  to  defend  himself  ?  He  can  only  seize 
whatever  falls  into  his  hand  with  which  to  defend 
his  life  and  his  property.  What  we  are  doing  is 
not  planned  murder ;  it  is  legitimate,  legalised 
war  :  war  that  all  society  and  moralists  heartily 
approve  of.  If,  when  I  kill  the  enemy  of  my 
country  I  am  called  a  patriot  and  a  hero  ;  if  by 
shooting  the  general  of  a  hostile  army,  I  do  an 
act  that  my  compatriots  will  applaud  and  history 
record  among  the  glorious  deeds  of  man,  then, 
since  the  Tsar  is  not  only  my  enemy  but  also  that 
of  my  country  and  of  my  people,  and  he  refuses 
to  fight  with  me  on  an  equal  footing,  I  am  justified 
in  choosing  my  own  weapons  against  him.  Such 
were  the  reassuring  arguments  of  the  Committee 
of  Terrorism,  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  they 
were  based  upon  the  morality  and  ethics  taught 
and  practised  by  society  then  as  now. 

The  active  revolutionaries  found  many  sup- 
porters among  the  members  of  the  aristocracy  and 
the  minor  officials  Avho  either  could  not,  or  would 
not,  themselves  take  an  active  part  in  the  revo- 
lution, but  who  yet  sympathised  with  the  move- 
ment.    These  were  called  the  "  Oukrivateli,"   or 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        211 

hiders.  This  shows  how  the  spirit  of  revolt  was 
advancing.  Thus  the  illegal  government,  as  the 
revolutionary  committee  was  called,  found  helpers 
and  adherents  among  the  employees  of  the  legal 
government.  Officers  and  even  police  officials 
lent  them  a  helping  hand.  The  culminating  point 
of  the  Narodnaya  Volya  w^as  reached  on  March  1st 
(13th),  1881,  when  Alexander  was  assassinated  by 
a  bomb  thrown  by  Grinetzky.  Five  revolution- 
aries, the  agcomplices  of  the  regicide,  namely, 
Zhelyabov,  Mikhailov,  Kibaltshitsh,  Ryssakov  and 
Sophie  Perovskaya,  were  condemned  to  death  and 
hanged  on  April  3rd  (15th).  Jesse  Helfmann,  being 
enceinte,  was  spared.  But  the  spirit  of  revolt 
did  not  die  upon  the  gallows  with  the  regicides. 
It  merely  fluttered  forth  in  search  of  a  new^  home- 
stead. The  next  day  the  committee  addressed  a 
missive  to  the  new  Tsar,  Alexander  III,  in  w^hich 
they  told  him  that  the  events  of  March  1st  had 
not  been  unpremeditated,  and  called  upon  him 
to  take  the  tragedy  to  heart  and  to  read  the  mene, 
tekel  which  the  spirit  of  revolt  was  writing  with 
letters  of  blood  upon  the  walls  of  Tsardom. 

"  You  may  rest  assured.  Sire,"  wrote  the  mem- 
bers of  the  secret  committee  to  Alexander  III, 
"  that  on  the  day  on  which  the  supreme  power 
ceases  to  be  autocratic,  on  which  you  will  firmly 
decide  to  listen  to  what  the  conscience  and  the 
will  of  the  people  are  dictating  to  you,  on  that 
day  you  will  be  able  to  free  the  streets  of  your 
spies  who  are  a  dishonour  to  the  Government ;  you 
will  be  able  to  leave  your  escorts  in  their  barracks 
and  uproot  your  gallows  that  demoralise  the 
people.  Once  these  conditions  are  realised,  then 
a  peaceful  conflict  of  ideas  will  take  the  place  of 


212        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  present  violence,  which,  incidentally,  we  abhor 
even  more  than  your  servants,  and  which  necessity 
and  circumstances  alone  have  forced  us  to  use." 
Terrorism  was  only  a  means,  a  weapon  w^hich  a 
peaceful  man  vfielded  against  his  foe  ;  it  was  the 
war  of  the  oppressed,  the  invaded  against  the  in- 
vader. The  peaceful  invaded  hates  war  and  its 
awful  horrors,  but  the  brutal  invader  leaves  him 
no  choice.  Such  was  the  philosophy  of  the  Ter- 
rorists. 

Alexander  answered  the  challenge  by  entrust- 
ing the  famous  and  ferocious  Ignatiev  with  the 
power  to  suppress  revolution  without  pity.  Every 
kind  of  propaganda  was  then  forbidden  by  the 
Government  of  Russia.  The  fighters  for  political 
freedom  were  at  once  imprisoned,  sent  to  Siberia, 
to  the  mines  ;  all  without  any  form  of  trial  by 
jury  or  judgment.  Many  a  young  boy  or  girl 
suddenly  disappeared,  and  when  their  heartbroken 
parents  inquired  concerning  the  fate  of  their  chil- 
dren, they  were  advised  by  the  minions  who 
watched  over  the  safety  of  the  autocrat  to  stop 
their  researches.  Their  son  or  daughter  had  disap- 
peared, voild  tout.  However,  numbers  of  the 
accused  were  granted  a  semblance  of  a  trial  before 
a  jury  who  had  been  commanded  to  condemn  the 
prisonei'.  Unhappy  boys  and  girls  were  sentenced 
to  death,  or  to  penal  servitude  for  life,  for  the  sole 
crime  of  having  distributed  proclamations.  Very 
often  the  accusation  was  utterly  false ;  it  had 
only  been  a  simple  daily  paper  that  the  prisoner 
had  handed  to  some  soldier  who  had  asked  for 
it.  The  following  story,  one  out  of  hundreds, 
typifies  the  system  employed  during  the  reign  of 
Alexander  III. 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        218 

Vanya  Disappears 

It  was  a  beautiful  day  and  the  sun  was  shining 
brightly  when  the  student  Vanya  went  out  for  a 
stroll  on  the  Nevski  Prospect.  Spring  was  out- 
side, but  not  in  the  heart  of  Vanya.  Neither  the 
glorious  weather  nor  the  song  of  the  birds  could 
gladden  the  heart  of  the  youth  of  twenty  nor 
dispel  his  gloomy  thoughts.  He  was  sad  and  his 
heart  was  heavy.  On  the  previous  evening  several 
of  his  comrades,  boys  and  girls,  dreamers  of  free- 
dom, had  been  arrested  by  the  police,  the  slaves 
of  autocracy  ;  they  had  been  dragged  away  to 
prison,  thence  to  the  casemates  and  cells  of  the 
Russian  Bastille.  Despair  was  in  Vanya' s  heart ; 
for  him  nature  was  shrouded  in  a  veil  of  unutter- 
able sadness  and  hopelessness. 

Aimlessly  he  strolled  along  the  boulevard,  bought 
a  copy  of  The  Russian  Thought  {Rousskaya  Myslj) 
and  sat  down  on  a  bench.  The  paper  did  not 
cheer  him ;  the  leading  article  spoke  of  many 
arrests,  and  the  name  of  a  certain  Colonel  Lotov 
was  mentioned  several  times.  With  a  sinking 
heart  Vanya  read  of  the  various  cruel  punishments 
meted  out  to  the  political  prisoners.  He  thought 
he  would  smoke  a  cigarette,  but  found  that  he 
had  no  matches.  Looking  round  he  noticed  two 
young  soldiers  standing  at  the  gate  of  the  barracks 
near,  so  he  went  to  them  and  asked  if  they  could 
give  him  a  light.  One  of  the  soldiers  handed 
Vanya  his  matchbox,  then  seeing  the  newspaper, 
asked  if  he  might  borrow  it  for  a  few  moments 
to  read. 

"  Ah,  so  you  are  able  to  read?"  said  Vanya. 

*'  To  read  and  to  write,"   proudly  replied  the 


214         THE   RUSSIAN   REVOLUTION 

soldier;  "he  cannot  though,"  he  added,  pointing 
to  his  companion,  "  but  we  are  both  glad  to  learn 
what  is  happening  in  the  world." 

"  Take  it,"  said  Vanya,  handing  the  paper  to 
the  soldier,  "  but,  alas,  there  is  no  news  except 
that  of  bloodshed,  punishments  and  murders." 

"  Yes,"  said  the  soldiers,  "  these  are  difficult 
times." 

"  Very  difficult  indeed,"  replied  Vanya.  "  You, 
for  instance,  does  it  make  you  happy  when  you 
are  ordered  to  shoot  your  fellow  men  ?  What 
horror !  " 

At  this  moment  the  student  was  brutally  inter- 
rupted by  a  sergeant  who  suddenly  emerged  from 
behind  the  gate.  ' 

"  How  dare  you  speak  to  the  soldiers  ?  "  he 
shouted.  "  I  see  what  you  are  up  to."  Turning 
to  the  soldier  he  snatched  the  newspaper  out  of 
his  hand,  examined  it,  and  then  scrutinised  Vanya, 
who  stood  there  smiling. 

"  Call  the  officer  on  guard,"  the  sergeant  sud- 
denly commanded  one  of  the  soldiers. 

Vanya  was  still  smiling.  "  Why  are  you  so 
angry  ?  '*  he  queried  innocently.  "  I  have  done 
nothing.  I  only  gave  my  newspaper  to  the  soldier 
to  read.     Is  that  forbidden  ?  " 

"  You  will  know  soon  enough,"  began  the  ser- 
geant, and  then  suddenly  stood  rigid. 

The  colonel  was  approaching. 

"  What's  the  matter  ?  "  asked  the  latter,  look- 
ing severely  at  the  group. 

"  I  have  caught  an  agitator,"  reported  the  ser- 
geant. "  I  heard  him  ask  one  of  the  soldiers  for 
a  match,  and  then,  after  entering  into  conversa- 
tion  with  them,   reproach  them  for   shooting   at 


I 


(( 
(( 


REACTION   AND   TERRORISM        215 

revolutionaries.     He    has    even    done    more,    he 
handed  a  proclamation  to  the  soldiers," 

Vanya  was  surprised. 

"What  proclamation  ?  "  he  protested  ;  "  it  was 
only  a  newspaper  which  I  had  just  bought." 

"  We  asked  him  for  some  paper,"  one  soldier 
ventured  to  explain,  "  in  which  to  roll  up  some 
cigarettes." 

They  were  evidently  afraid  to  admit  that  one 
was  able  to  read  and  write. 

You  be  quiet,"  thundered  the  sergeant. 
What     newspaper     was     it  ? "      queried    the 
colonel. 

"  The  Russian  Thought,''*  replied  Vanya. 

The  colonel  cast  a  glance  over  the  paper,  then 
commanded  briefly  : 

"  Take  him  to  the  guard  room  ;  I  shall  soon 
follow." 

Vanya  did  not  understand.  *'  But  what  have 
I  done  ?  "    he  stammered. 

"  You  had  better  go  quietly  or  else  you  will  be 
taken  by  force,"  was  the  only  reply  he  received 
to  his  question. 

He  was  led  away,  and  in  the  guard  room  was 
questioned  by  the  colonel. 

"  I  could  hand  you  over  to  the  police  for  agitating 
among  the  soldiers  and  troubling  discipline,  but 
I  shall  not  do  so,"  said  Colonel  Lotov,  for  it  was 
none  other,  and  he  smiled  ominously. 

Colonel  Lotov  v/as  a  zealous  servant  of  auto- 
cracy and  notorious  for  the  promptitude  with 
which  he  executed  orders  received  from  high 
quarters.  More  than  once  he  had  been  ordered 
to  pacify  some  revolted  districts,  and  he  had 
pacified  them  in  his  own  way.     He  had  been  told 


216        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

not  to  spare,  and  he  had  not  spared  ;  he  was  a 
faithful  servant.  His  soldiers  called  him  the 
Butcher  among  themselves,  but  the  colonel  looked 
upon  himself  as  an  ordinary  upholder  of  discip- 
line and  order.  Well,  here  was  a  young  man  who 
had  dared  to  hand  a  paper  to  his  soldiers,  a  paper 
in  which  some  scribe  had  dared  to  criticise  him, 
Colonel  Lotov.  How  gladly  he  would  have 
ordered  his  soldiers  to  direct  their  machine-guns 
against  all  newspaper  offices,  but  the  higher 
spheres  had  not  yet  issued  such  an  order.  What 
a  pity  ! 

"  Is  this  your  paper  ?  "    he  asked  Vanya. 

"  Yes,"  quietly  replied  the  student. 

"  Do  you  know  its  contents  ?  " 

"  Yes." 

"  Then  how  dared  you  offer  it  to  my  soldiers 
and  let  them  read  these  criticisms  against  me, 
their  colonel  ?  " 

"  I  did  not  know  your  name  was  Lotov.  I  did 
not  know  to  what  regiment  the  soldiers  belonged. 
It  is  a  mere  coincidence." 

"  Lies  !  "  thundered  the  colonel.  "  Now  I 
could  treat  you  as  an  agitator  and  hand  you  over 
to  the  police,  but,"  and  again  Colonel  Lotov 
smiled  his  ominous  smile,  "  I  shall  treat  you  like 
a  naughty  school  boy." 

"  Bring  the  lash,"  he  ordered,  turning  to  his 
orderly. 

Vanya  was  no  longer  smiling  ;  he  was  boiling 
with  indignation. 

How  dare  you  ?  "    he  cried. 
You   will   soon   know   how    I    dare,"    replied 
Lotov.     ''  The  lash,  I  say,"  he  commanded  again; 
""  hurry." 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        217 

The  vein  on  his  forehead  was  visibly  swelling  ; 
his  soldiers  knew  what  it  meant. 

Vanya  dragged  himself  along,  stealthily,  like  a 
criminal  hiding  from  men  ;  he  dared  not  return 
to  his  lodgings.  There  was  but  one  human  being 
whom  he  could  face  now ;  that  was  his  friend 
Sergey.  He  stumbled  into  Sergey's  room  and, 
falling  on  his  friend's  neck,  uttered  a  piercing  cry, 
the  cry  of  a  hunted  animal. 

"  I  have  been  horsewhipped  I  '* 

A  week  elapsed.  Colonel  Lotov  had  already 
forgotten  the  adventure ;  he  was  in  a  good 
humour.  Everything  was  going  well  with  him  ; 
order  and  obedience  reigned  everywhere ;  his 
wife  and  children,  his  servants,  his  subordinates, 
not  to  speak  of  his  soldiers,  all  were  showing  the 
proper  spirit  of  submission.  Only  that  morning 
he  had  punished  his  son,  and  the  latter  had  humbly 
begged  for  forgiveness  and  promised  to  obey  in 
future.  Lotov  had  also  boxed  the  ears  of  his 
orderly  and  asked  him  whether  he  realised  that 
he  was  a  fool. 

"  Yes,  your  honour  is  right,"  the  latter  had 
submissively  answered. 

Colonel  Lotov  walked  along  proudly,  as  befitted 
a  man  who  had  done  his  full  duty.  He  had  ren- 
dered valuable  services  to  the  autocratic  and 
bureaucratic  regime  and  he  was  expecting  some 
signal  reward  for  his  zeal.  Suddenly  a  young 
man,  haggard  and  pale,  barred  his  way. 

"  I  have  seen  him  somewhere,"  thought  Colonel 
Lotov,  but  he  did  not  recognise  in  the  haggard 
and    pale-faced   individual,    whose    eyes   were    so 


218         THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

threatening,  the  rosy-cheeked  student  whom  he 
had  ordered  to  be  whipped  but  a  week  ago. 

"  Colonel  Lotov,"  cried  Vanya,  "  your  day  will 
come,  the  day  when  Russia's  Lotovs  will  pay  the 
penalty  of  their  crimes,  but,  for  the  present,  take 
this  on  account,"  and  he  boxed  the  ears  of  the 
astounded  colonel  and  disappeared  before  Lotov 
could  stop  him. 

Vanya  became  a  revolutionary.  He  distributed 
proclamations  among  the  soldiers  and  spoke  to 
them  of  their  real  duty,  their  duty  to  the  suffering 
masses.  One  evening  a  secret  meeting  was  held 
in  some  back  room;  the  police  made  a  raid  and 
arrested  all  present,  among  them  Vanya.  The 
student  disappeared  and  was  dead  to  the  world. 

Far  away,  in  a  small  provincial  town  in  the 
government  of  Saratov,  a  poor,  lonely  woman 
paced  her  room  restlessly.  From  time  to  time  she 
approached  the  window  and  looked  out,  anxious 
to  catch  sight  of  the  postman.  She  was  expecting 
a  letter  from  her  dear  boy  away  in  the  capital. 

"  Strange,"  she  murmured,  "  Vanya  has  not 
written  for  weeks.  He  must  be  ill,"  thought  the 
mother  in  despair.  Then  suddenly  a  dread  thought 
flashed  through  her  brain  ;  her  heart  stood  still, 
her  very  blood  seemed  to  freeze.  Had  not  her 
nephew  Polivanov  had  an  affair  ?  And  it  was 
only  years  afterwards  that  her  brother  had  learned 
that  his  boy  was  still  alive  in  Schluesselburg,  but 
the  poor  heartbroken  father  was  allowed  to  die 
without  seeing  his  son. 

With  a  mother's  instinct  Vanya' s  mother  guessed 
the  cause  of  her  son's  silence.  He  was  dead,  dead 
to    her   and   to   the    world.     Somewhere   he   w^as 


REACTION   AND   TERRORISM        219 

stretching  out  his  arms  to  her,  calling  to  her,  but 
she  was  helpless  to  aid  him.  There  was  no  mercy 
shown  to  political  prisoners  at  the  throne  of  the 
Tsar.  There  was  the  sound  of  a  fall,  and  when 
the  servant  rushed  in  she  found  the  old  woman 
in  a  swoon  on  the  floor. 

When  the  unhappy  mother  recovered  and  was 
able  to  travel,  she  at  once  left  for  the  capital. 
Alas,  her  efforts,  her  supplications,  her  tears  were 
futile.  Vanya  had  disappeared.  It  was  montlis 
afterwards  that  she  learned  from  an  oflicial  whom 
she  had  heavily  bribed  that  her  son  was  still  alive. 

"  But,"  added  her  benefactor,  "  take  my  advice, 
do  not  inquire  further  after  your  son ;  go  home 
and  forget  him.  The  higher  spheres  might  resent 
your  insistence  ;  they  do  not  like  to  be  reminded 
of  the  fact  that  there  are  such  things  as  oubliettes 
and  bastilles  in  Russia." 

This  story  was  told  to  me  one  day  in  the  Caf^ 
de  la  Regence,  while  outside  an  enthusiastic  crowd 
was  cheering  "  Le  Tsar  blanc  !  " 

For  generations,  oceans  of  tears,  oceans  of  blood 
have  been  shed  by  Russian  mothers,  tears  for 
which  autocracy  has  been  responsible.  Numerous 
Russian  mothers  are  once  m.ore  shedding  tears, 
but  now  they  are  tears  of  joy,  for  no  longer  will 
their  boys  and  girls  be  hurled  into  the  casemates 
of  autocracy's  bastilles,  the  fortresses  of  Petro- 
pavlovsk  and  Schluesselburg,  there  to  die,  commit 
suicide  or  lose  their  reason.  The  dav  of  freedom 
has  broken  at  last. 

Death  and  penal  servitude  were  the  mild  punish- 
ments which  Tsardom  meted  out  to  its  enemies. 
In    its    refined    cruelty,   Autocracy  conceived    of 


220        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

solitary  confinement.  It  was  a  slow,  gradual 
death  that  drove  its  victims  to  despair.  The 
bastilles  into  which  the  Tsars  used  to  throw  their 
enemies  were,  at  first,  the  fortresses  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul — oh,  apostles  of  the  religion  of  love, 
what  a  mockery  of  your  teaching ! — and  then  the 
famous  fortress  of  Schluesselburg.  In  the  case- 
mates of  Schluesselburg,  in  its  living  tombs,  the 
"  politicals  "  passed  their  unfortunate  lives,  dead 
to  the  world.  The  names  and  memoirs  of  the 
prisoners  of  the  Russian  bastilles  would  fill 
volumes.  At  random,  let  me  mention  the  names 
of  a  few  of  the  pioneers  of  Russian  freedom  in  its 
struggle  against  autocracy. 

The  daily  papers  have  mentioned  that  among 
those  who  went  to  the  Taurida  Palace  to  applaud 
the  Russian  Revolution  and  to  rejoice  over  the 
downfall  of  Tsardom,  was  an  old  man,  Herman 
Lopatin.  Lopatin  was  one  of  the  victims  of  the 
regime  of  autocracy — one  of  the  lucky  victims,  for 
he  has  lived  to  see  the  triumph  of  liberty  and  the 
defeat  of  oppression.  He  is  one  of  the  few  sur- 
vivors of  that  glorious  epoch  when  thousands  of 
Russian  boys  and  girls  fought  and  suffered  and 
died  for  freedom.  Many  of  Lopatin' s  comrades 
went  to  an  early  grave,  and  only  their  shades  now 
see  with  grim  satisfaction  the  tragedy  of  the  house 
of  Romanov. 

Herman  Lopatin  was  born  in  1845,  and  belongs 
to  a  noble  Russian  family.  He  studied  at  the 
Gymnasium  (Grammar  School)  of  Stavropol,  and 
then  entered  the  University  of  St.  Petersburg, 
where  he  took  his  degree  in  1866  with  a  treatise 
on  biology.  A  scientific  career  was  open  to  the 
young  savant,  but  his  ardent  nature  craved  for  a 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        221 

life  of  action  and  endeavour.  Garibaldi  had  just 
then  unfurled  the  banner  of  revolt,  so  Lopatin 
went  to  Italy  to  join  his  movement  for  freedom. 
But  he  arrived  too  late,  for  Garibaldi  had  already 
been  made  a  prisoner  (November  15th,  1867). 
Lopatin  then  returned  to  Russia,  where  he  became 
a  member  of  a  society  formed  to  teach  the  moujiks 
to  read  and  write.  Lopatin  was  arrested,  for 
to  spread  instruction  among  the  ignorant  peas- 
ants was  a  crime  under  the  rule  of  autocracy. 
He  escaped  however,  and  reached  Paris  in  1870. 
From  Paris  he  went  to  London,  where  he  met  Karl 
Marx  and  Frederick  Engels.  It  was  while  in 
London  that  he  translated  Marx's  famous  work, 
Das  Capital,  into  Russian. 

Suddenly,  the  young  revolutionary  disappeared. 
Whither  had  he  gone  ?  His  friends  soon  learned 
where.  The  Russian  revolutionary  movement  at 
that  time  had  no  leader,  no  competent  chief  ;  there 
was  but  one  man  who  could  have  taken  up  the 
reins  of  leadership :  Nicholas  Tshernyshevski. 
Nicholas  Tshernyshevski,  however,  was  exiled  in 
Siberia,  sent  there  by  Tsardom.  Lopatin  had 
conceived  the  daring  plan  of  attempting  to  liberate 
the  leader  from  captivity  and  bring  him  out  of 
Russia  where  he  would  be  safe.  He  arrived  at 
Irkutsk,  and  was  on  the  very  point  of  realising  his 
daring  project,  but — the  servants  of  autocracy 
were  not  easily  caught  napping.  An  agent  of  the 
Russian  secret  police  in  Geneva  wired  to  his  head- 
quarters in  Russia  that  Lopatin  was  in  Siberia 
to  help  Tshernyshevski  to  escape.  Autocracy 
was  alarmed.  Lopatin  was  arrested  at  Irkutsk 
and  remained  in  prison  for  fully  three  years.  Then, 
with  a  daring  and  courage  that  would  scarcely 


222         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

find  their  equal  in  the  annals  of  famous  prison 
escapes,  he  managed  to  regain  his  freedom,  and, 
after  many  vicissitudes  and  dangers,  arrived  at 
Tomsk.  He  was  arrested  once  more  and  taken 
back  to  Irkutsk.  Here,  while  he  was  in  the  pri- 
vate room  of  the  judge,  through  the  open  window 
he  saw  a  horse  waiting  for  him.  To  jump  through 
the  window  and  mount  the  horse  was  the  work  of 
a  moment,  and  before  the  astonished  judge  could 
call  for  help,  Lopatin  had  galloped  safely  away. 
Disguised  in  the  garb  of  a  peasant  he  arrived  at 
St.  Petersburg,  and  thence  proceeded  to  Zurich, 
where  he  collaborated  with  Lavrov  in  the  review 
Forwards. 

It  was  dangerous  for  Lopatin  to  return  to  Russia, 
but  nevertheless,  for  the  sake  of  the  cause,  he  did 
so.  He  was  tracked  by  an  agent  of  the  secret 
police  and  again  arrested.  Once  more  he  escaped, 
and  reached  Paris  in  1883.  Here  he  became  one 
of  the  most  active  members  of  the  party  "  Narod- 
naya  Volya  "  (The  Will  of  the  People),  and  a  con- 
tributor to  their  organ,  the  Messenger  of  the  Will 
of  the  People. 

Few  men  would  again  have  dared  to  return  to 
Russia,  but  the  good  of  the  cause  demanded  it,  so 
Lopatin  did  not  hesitate  to  place  his  head  in  the 
lion's  mouth.  He  was  arrested  for  the  last  time 
in  October  1884,  and  remained  in  prison  for  three 
years  before  he  was  tried.  On  June  17th,  1887, 
Lopatin  was  condemned  to  death,  as  were  also 
his  colleagues,  Salova,  Soukhomlin,  Henriette  Do- 
brushkin,  Sergius  Ivanov  and  the  famous  poet 
Yakubovitsh.  In  his  great  clemency,  the  Tsar 
commuted  the  death-penalty  into  that  of  penal 
servitude  for  a  time,  to  be  followed  by  perpetual 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM        223 

solitary  confinement  in  the  fortress  of  Schluessel- 
burg. 

The  fortress  of  Schluesselburg  is  situated  at  a 
distance  of  about  fifty-four  versts  from  Petrograd, 
on  an  island  of  the  Lake  Ladoga.  If  walls  could 
speak,  what  terrible  tales  those  of  Schluesselburg 
could  tell !  They  have  heard  the  cries  of  agony 
of  the  victims  of  autocracy  and  witnessed  scenes  of 
unspeakable  horror.  Schluesselburg  was  the  living 
tomb  where  the  fighters  for  freedom  passed  their 
unhappy  days,  dead  to  the  outside  world.  The 
prison  of  Schluesselburg  was  built  in  1883,  during 
the  reign  of  Alexander  III,  father  of  the  ex-Tsar 
Nicholas  II,  and  received  its  first  inmates  and 
guests  in  August  1884.  Within  its  w^alls,  from 
1884  to  1905,  it  harboured  sixty-seven  politicals, 
among  them  the  famous  Vera  Figner  and  Ger- 
shuni.  Thirteen  of  the  prisoners  were  executed, 
three  committed  suicide — Klimenko,  Gratshevsky, 
and  ^Mlle.  Sophie  Ginsburg — and  sixteen  died  in  an 
access  of  insanity. 

Herman  Lopatin,  whose  spirit,  in  spite  of  the 
years  passed  in  the  casemates  of  the  Russian  bas- 
tille, was  still  undaunted,  was  one  of  the  eight 
prisoners  liberated  in  1905  during  the  short-lived 
revolutionary  triumph.  The  veteran  fighter  is 
but  one  of  the  thousands  who  have  sufiered  for 
freedom.  The  road  to  Russian  liberty  is  strewn 
with  the  numerous  graves  of  the  heroes  and  heroines 
who  have  fallen  in  the  sacred  cause,  the  graves 
of  poets,  philosophers  and  dreamers,  of  men  of 
thought  and  of  action.  Like  the  heroes  of  ancient 
Sparta,  their  spirits  will  call  to  future  travellers 
in  a  free  Russia  :  "  Stranger,  tell  them  at  Moscow 
and  at  Petrograd,  at  Pskov  and  at  Kiev,  that  we 


224        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

died  because  we  loved  our  country  and  liberty.  We 
fell  victims  to  the  cruelty  of  Tsardom  and  bureau- 
cracy. Tell  them  to  cherish  the  newly  won  freedom 
and  to  swear  vengeance  on  all  tyrants,  autocrats 
and  oppressors,  be  their  names  Romanov,  Haps- 
burg  or  HohenzoUern." 

At   first,   the   political  prisoners  were  kept   in 
Petropavlovsk — the  fortress  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul — and  the  portion  which  harboured  them  was 
known  as  the  "  Ravelin  of  Alexis,"  or  the  Bastion 
Troubetskoy.     Why  Ravelin  of  Alexis  ?     Because 
it  was  here  that  Peter  the  Great  imprisoned,  tor- 
tured and  put  to  death  his  own  son  Alexis.     It  is 
an  oubliette  far  away  from  the  world  ;    no  noise 
from  without  can  enter  or  penetrate  it.     The  cells 
— nineteen  in  number — are  scarcely  aboye  the  water 
level ;    they  are  tombs,  and  when  the  Neva  rises 
many     disappear.     It     was     here    that     Princess 
Tarakanov  died.     The  Romanovs  have  often  got 
rid  of  their  opponents  in  this  way.     One  prisoner, 
a  lady — Yakinova — had  a  young  baby  but  a  few 
months   old,   with   her,   and   she  had  to   be  per- 
petually on  guard  that  the  rats  did  not  devour 
the  child.     It  was  also  in  the  Ravelin  that  Bakunin 
was  imprisoned.     Out  of  the  seven  politicals  im- 
prisoned in  the  Ravelin  in  March  1882,  five  died 
before  two   years   were   out.     Many  men,    strong 
and  vigorous  in  health  when  imprisoned,  suffered 
terribly  from  various  diseases  ;    some  were  unable 
even  to  articulate  one  word  when  finally  set  free. 
From    Petropavlovsk  the  prisoners  were  taken 
by  boat  to  Schluesselburg  ;    the  boat  itself  was  a 
floating  tomb  with  cells.     It  was  the  custom  to 
seize  the    political  prisoners,   bandage    their  eyes 
and  carry  them  off  in  that  helpless  and  terrifying 


o 

X 

o 

a 
H 

P3 
iJ 
K 

O} 

W 
P 
Hi 
K 
o 


■M 


REACTION  AND  TERRORISM        225 

condition  :  they  had  no  idea  whither  they  were 
being  taken,  and  often  imagined  that  they  were 
to  be  drowned.  One  of  the  most  terrible  punish- 
ments, worse  than  the  ill-treatment,  bad  food, 
privation  of  freedom,  etc.,  was  the  silence  and  in- 
activity to  which  the  criminals  were  condemned. 
This  awful  silence  of  the  tomb  I — "  By  order  of 
the  Tsar" — no  right  to  speak,  even  half-aloud  ! 
and  if  they  dared  to  speak,  the  jailers  had  no  right 
to  reply. 

"  You  have  no  right  to  speak  to  the  jailers," 
said  the  prison  director  to  one  political;  "they  are 
all  mute ;  I  alone  here  am  allowed  to  speak." 

Silence,  inactivity,  isolation !  Such  was  the 
punishment  meted  out  to  the  opponents  of  auto- 
cracy. The  prisoner  was  dead  ;  not  even  his  parents 
had  a  right  to  inquire  after  him.  The  father  of 
Konashevitsh  died  many  years  after  his  son  had 
disappeared,  not  knowing  where  his  boy  was,  or 
even  if  he  were  still  alive.  Sometimes,  by  means 
of  long  research  and  much  bribery,  parents  would 
obtain  the  knowledge  that  "  Your  son  is  still 
alive." 

When  the  prisoners  cried  out  in  their  agony, 
they  were  dragged  away  to  a  distant  cell.  If  the 
comrades  who  heard  the  cries  protested,  or  even 
inquired,  they  were  rudely  told  not  to  inquire  or 
care  about  others:  "There  are  no  others;  here 
you  are  alone." 

Bogdanovitsh,  one  of  the  political  prisoners,  was 
dying  of  phthisis  ;  the  cell  near  his  being  empty, 
Vera  Figner  asked  to  be  transferred  to  it.  By 
means  of  knocks  she  hoped  to  let  him  know  that 
there  was  another  human  being  in  the  world, 
there  was   a  friend,   a   comrade  near  him.     Her 

15J 


226        THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

request  was  refused,  and  Bogdanovitsh  died  alone. 
At  last,  in  1896,  it  was  graciously  granted  to 
'*  the  others  "  that  they  might  be  present  when  a 
comrade  died. 

Many  of  the  prisoners  committed  suicide.  Grat- 
shevsky  soaked  his  mattress  in  petrol  and  burned 
himself  alive.  One  can  imagine  what  tortures  he 
must  have  suffered  to  have  preferred  such  a 
death.  Sophie  Ginsburg  cut  her  throat  with  an 
old  and  rusty  pair  of  scissors.  Arontshik  was  one 
of  those  who  lost  his  reason.  Vera  Figner  and 
Wolkenstein,  the  two  lady  prisoners,  had  some 
small  privileges  granted  them.  They  received  a 
little  milk  and  sugar.  For  hours  they  would  hold 
the  cup  of  milk  with  the  sugar  in  it  over  their 
lamps  in  order  to  make  a  kind  of  sweet  known  as 
tianoutshki,  which  they  then  smuggled  in  to  some  - 
of  their  comrades.  Their  crime  was  eventually 
discovered  and  the  sweets  were  confiscated. 

It  is  a  strange  coincidence  that  Goremykin,  who 
is  a  prisoner  in  Schluesselburg  and  who  is  said  to 
have  lost  his  reason,  was  in  power  when  Konashe- 
vitsh — a  descendant  of  the  famous  hetman  of 
the  Cossacks,  Konashevitsh  Zagaidatshny — and 
Shtshevni  were,  though  mad,  imprisoned  in 
Schluesselburg  ;  one  was  there  for  seven  and  the 
other  for  ten  years  before  they  were  sent  to  a  ' 
lunatic  asylum. 

Amxong  the  sixty-seven  political  prisoners  at 
Schluesselburg  from  1884  to  1905,  five  were  sent 
to  a  prison  in  Moscow  and  thirteen  to  Siberia. 
Vera  Figner,  after  twenty  years  of  detention,  was 
deported  to  the  province  of  Arkhangelsk  in  1903. 
Mme.  Wolkenstein  left  the  prison  after  thirteen 
years'  detention,  but  in  1906  was  shot  in  the  street 


REACTION  AND   TERRORISM         227 

during  a  revolt  at  Vladivostock.  When  Polivanov 
was  freed  from  the  prison  after  twenty  years  de- 
tention, he  said  :  "I  am  only  twenty-four  years 
old."  That  had  been  his  age  when  he  was  first 
incarcerated.  He  committed  suicide  at  Lorient 
in  France  in  1903  ! 

Such  was  the  answer  of  Alexander  III  to  the 
letter  addressed  to  him  by  the  executive  com- 
mittee. His  v/hole  reign  was  a  reign  of  silence  and 
terror.  Autocracy  vv^as  confident,  for  it  knew  that 
the  Narodnaya  had  not  the  masses  behind  it. 
While  the  members  of  the  Narodnaya  claimed  that 
they  expressed  the  voice  of  the  m.asses,  autocracy 
and  its  supporters  maintained  that  Tsardom  was 
the  expression  and  the  very  incarnation  of  the 
Slavonic  soul,  that  democracy  was  dangerous 
and  that  autocracy  alone  was  capable  of  furthering 
the  welfare  of  the  people.  Of  course,  both  sides, 
autocracy  and  the  spirit  of  revolt,  were,  or  pre- 
tended to  be,  v,"orking  in  the  interests  of  the  people. 
Among  the  supporters  of  autocracy  and  of  the 
policy  of  Alexander  III  one  man  deserves  especial 
mention  :    I  refer  to  Pobiedonostzev. 


CHAPTER    XI 

THE  JEWS  AS  PIONEERS  OF  THE  RUSSIAN 

REVOLUTION 

Among  the  ethnic  groups  whose  discontent  and 
opposition  to  Tsardom  had  necessarily  reached 
vast  proportions,  and  who  largely  contributed  to 
the  downfall  of  autocracy,  is  that  of  the  Jew^s.  To 
a  greater  degree  than  the  Poles,  the  Letts  or  Finns, 
or,  indeed,  any  other  ethnic  group  in  the  vast 
Empire  of  the  Romanovs,  they  have  been  the 
artisans  of  the  Revolution  of  1917.  .  The  martyr- 
ology  of  the  so-called  foreign  races  in  Russia, 
who,  one  must  admit,  have  all  been  compelled  to 
bring  their  holocausts  to  the  Moloch  Tsardom, 
cannot  be  compared  to  that  of  the  Jews.  The 
persecutions,  the  marytrdom  the  Jewish  race  has 
undergone  in  Russia  is  well  known  ;  their  "  legal 
sufferings,"  the  vexatious  laws  promulgated  against 
them,  the  pogroms  and  massacres  are  still  recent 
liistory  ;  I  hope  that  the  memory  of  their  suffer- 
ings has  not  been  wiped  away  by  this  world  war 
that  is  now  raging  over  Europe,  a  war  that  is  being 
fought  for  the  deliverance  and  the  emancipation 
of  oppressed  nationalities.  Certainly  the  Jews  of 
Russia  have  a  right,  by  suffering,  to  a  place  of  honour 
among  the  oppressed  nationalities  of  the  world. 

It  was  but  natural  that  the  Jews  should  take  a 
prominent    pai't    in    the    movement    of    Russian 

228 


THE  JEWS  AS  PIONEERS  22d 

liberation.  When  Professor  Errera  wrote  that 
few  Jews  could  be  found  among  the  revolutionaries 
in  Russia,  he  was  absolutely  wrong.  "  Loin  de 
pouvoir  accuser  les  Juifs  russes  d'etre  revolution- 
aires,  on  serait  porte  plutot  k  s'etonner  de  leur 
resignation  plus  qu'evangelique,  car  il  y  a  long- 
temps  que  leur  joue  gauche  comme  leur  joue  droite, 
a  ete  mcurtrie  de  soufflets."  ^  To  this  statement 
I  cannot  subscribe.  On  the  contrary,  I  main- 
tain  that  not  only  have  the  Jews  of  Russia  good 
and  valid  reasons  to  be  on  the  side  of  the  revolu- 
tion, but  that,  in  reality,  they  have  contributed 
individually  and  collectively,  as  an  ethnic  and 
religious  group,  to  the  movement  of  emancipation 
in  Russia  and  to  the  triumph  of  democracy.  Yet 
Professor  Errera' s  opinion  has  for  a  long  time 
been  accepted  by  many  Jews,  at  least  officially. 

In  W^estern  Europe,  Englishmen  and  French- 
men of  the  Hebrew  persuasion — as  many  sons  of 
Israel  prefer  to  style  themselves — have  constantly 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  their  co-religionists  in 
Eastern  Europe,  and  in  all  oppressed  countries, 
were  very  loyal  subjects  of  their  respective  sove- 
reigns, especially  of  Caesar-Nicholas  II,  that  indeed 
their  love  and  affection  for  the  house  of  Romanov 
was  unbounded.  Certainly  it  is  a  noble  act  to 
love  one's  enemies,  but  it  is  a  form  of  nobility  of 
which  one  can  accuse  but  very  few  men.  It  is 
absurd  to  state  as  a  fact  that  which  our  common 
sense  tells  us  must  be  false.  I  therefore  unhesi- 
tatingly affirm  that  it  is  not  only  inaccurate  but 
a  gross  calumny  to  declare  that  Russian  Jews 
took  no  share  in  the  struggle  of  the  Russian  nation 
against   their   autocratic   Government.     A   people 

*  Cf.  L.  Errera,  Les  Juifs  Busses,  Bruxellea,  1893,  p.  1-45. 


280         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

which  for  centuries  has  been  systematically  op- 
pressed; tortured  and  massacred,  must  be  either 
devoid  of  all  human  feelings,  or  else  be  possessed 
of  truly  angelic  virtues,  if  it  can,  not  only  forgive, 
but  love  its  tormentors.  And  the  Jews  are  cer- 
tainly neither  dull  brutes  nor  angels.  They  are 
quite  human,  for  "  Hath  not  a  Jew  eyes  ?  Hath 
not  a  Jew  hands,  organs,  dimensions,  senses,  affec- 
tions, passions  ?  Is  he  not  troubled  by  the  same 
diseases,  healed  by  the  same  methods,  warmed 
and  cooled  by  the  same  v/inter  and  summer  as  is 
a  Christian  ?  If  you  prick  us,  do  Vv^e  not  bleed  ? 
If  you  tickle  us  do  we  not  laugh  ?  If  you  poison 
us,  do  we  not  die  ?  And  if  you  wrong  us,  shall  we 
not  take  revenge  ?  " 

But  with  all  respect  to  Shakespeare  I  do  not 
by  any  means  attribute  the  revolt  of  the  Russian 
Jews  against  autocracy  solely  to  the  spirit  of  re- 
venge, though  this  revenge-idea  is  upheld  strongly 
by  several  writers  upon  Russo-Jewish  affairs. 
Indeed,  many  seem  to  be  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Russian  pogroms  turned  the  Jews  into  revolu- 
tionaries, flung  them  into  the  arms  of  democracy 
and  revolution.  This  I  emphatically  deny,  and 
my  denial  is  based  upon  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
Jewish  histor}^  and  Jewish  psychology.  The  Jew 
does  not  call  a  cause  just  and  right  merely  because 
it  is  Ms  cause,  but,  because  he  believes  it  to  be 
just  and  right,  he  makes  it  his  cause  and  defends 
it  with  all  the  ardour  of  his  soul  and,  upon  its  altar, 
sacrifices  his  material  welfare.^ 

In  his  excellent  Vv^ork  on  the  Empire  of  the 
Tsars,   Anatole    Leroy-Beaulieu   seems   to   incline 

1  Many  Jews  are  constantly  claiming  "Justice  for  the  Jew," 
but  my  own  humble  cry  is  simply,  "  The  Jew  for  Justice." 


THE  JEWS  AS   PIONEERS  231 

towards  the  revenge-idea.  "Is  it  the  Polish 
Jew,"  he  wrote,  "  the  Jew  of  Russia  and  Rou- 
mania,  who  is  the  artisan  of  innovation  ?  Look  at 
him.  Was  it  he  who  could  have  pushed  the  world 
upon  paths  untrodden  ?  Is  it  he  who  could  have 
endangered  the  Austrian  civilisation  ?  No,"  says 
Leroy-Beaulieu,  "it  is  the  pogroms  that  have 
made  the  Jew  an  opponent  of  autocracy,  of  Tsar- 
dom,  nothing  else ;  but  for  them  the  Russian 
Jews  would  have  shunned  subversive  movements 
and  all  struggles  for  democracy.  *I1  est  pour 
cela  trop  Juif,  trop  religieux,  trop  devot,  trop 
traditionnel,  trop.  conservateur  en  un  mot.' "  ^ 
Thus  the  revolutionary  tendencies  of  the  Jews  in 
Russia  are  due  only  to  the  pogroms,  to  a  spirit  of 
revenge  against  autocracy  and  Tsardom,  otherwise 
the  religion  and  the  conservative  spirit  of  the  Jews 
would  have  prevented  them  joining  the  ranks  of 
democracy,  the  ranks  of  the  pioneers  of  freedom. 
With  these  ideas  of  the  famous  French  author  I 
cannot  agree. 

Neither  can  I  agree  with  M.  AUemand,  when 
he  states  that  apart  from  the  pogroms  which 
stimulated  the  hatred  of  Tsardom  amongst  the 
Jews,  it  is  the  weakening  of  the  religious  spirit 
that  has  turned  the  sons  of  Israel  into  adherents 
of  socialism  and  democratic  ideals.  "  In  the 
course  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  religious  spirit 
weakened  among  the  Jews.  They  ceased  to  con- 
sider the  Talmud  as  their  unique  book.  The  Rabbi 
was  no  longer  their  only  oracle.  The  Jews  no  longer 
looked  upon  their  religion  as  a  consolation  ;  they 
therefore  required  a  new  faith."  ^    This  new  faith 

*  Cf.  Anatole  Leroy-Beaulieu,  Ejnpire  des  Tsars,  Paris,  p.  039. 
2  Cf.  L.  AUemand,  Les  Soiiffrances  des  Juifs  Busses,  Paris,  1907. 


2S2        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  Jew  found  in  socialism.  Thus  M.  Anatole  Leroy- 
Beaulieu  is  a  partisan  of  the  theory  of  revenge, 
whilst  M.  Allemand  upholds  the  idea  of  irreligion. 
These  theories  of  the  eminent  Christian  writers, 
both  so  thoroughly,  whole-heartedly  sympathetic 
to  the  Jews,  are,  in  my  opinion,  entirely  wrong  ; 
they  are  based  upon  mistaken  premises.  The 
Leitmotif  of  Jewish  action  is  never  revenge,  with 
all  due  respect  to  Shakespeare,  but  justice  ;  whilst 
his  religion  has  never  prevented  the  Jew  from 
joining  the  ranks  of  the  fighters  for  freedom, 
equality  and  justice.  These  three  principles  are 
the  very  quintessence  of  the  Jewish  religion,  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Talmud  alike.  It  was  not  be- 
cause Tsardom  wronged  him  that  the  Jew  was 
against  autocracy,  but  because  Tsardom  wronged 
humanity.  The  real  Jew,  the  Jew  who  is  really 
penetrated  by  the  true  spirit  of  Judaism,  is  always 
on  the  side  of  the  suffering  and  the  oppressed ;  he 
has  always  been,  and  still  is,  an  opponent  of  the 
principle  of  the  divine  right  of  autocrats  and 
absolute  monarchs,  for  the  sovereign  right  of 
nations  is  his  ideal.  He  is  always — I  am  speak- 
ing of  the  real  Jew,  not  of  the  Aryanised  Jew 
— on  the  side  of  the  proletariat  and  Labour  as 
opposed  to  Capital,  because  Capital  has  made  a 
slave  of  Labour.  It  makes  no  difference  to  the 
Jew — the  Jew  who  is  inspired  by  the  teaching  of 
the  Prophets — whether  this  capitalist  be  Christian 
or  Jewish.  Now,  in  Russia,  the  Jews  have  been 
on  the  side  of  the  enemies  of  Tsardom  for  various 
reasons,  political,  economic,  religious  and  humani- 
tarian. Let  us  first  see  which  were,  and  are, 
their  own  personal  claims  to  emancipation  and 
full  citizen  rights.     Could  they  expect  any  favour 


THE  JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  233 

from  the  rulers  of  the  house  of  Holstein-Gottorp  ? 
The  answer  must  certainly  be  in  the  negative. 

The  Russian  Jews  were  justified  in  demanding 
emancipation  in  the  dominions  of  the  Tsar.  When 
in  the  English  Parliament  Macaulay  spoke  in 
favour  of  the  Bill  to  abolish  the  disabilities  fetter- 
ing the  Jews  in  England,  he  pointed  out  to  its 
opponents  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  national 
character  of  the  Jews  that  would  unfit  them  for 
the  highest  duties  of  citizenship.  "  In  the  in- 
fancy of  civilisation,*'  said  the  noble  orator, 
"  when  our  island  was  as  savage  as  New  Guinea, 
when  letters  and  the  arts  were  still  unknown  to 
Athens,  when  scarcely  a  thatched  hut  stood  on 
what  was  later  the  site  of  Rome,  this  contemned 
people  had  their  fenced  cities  and  cedar  palaces, 
their  splendid  Temple,  their  fleets  of  merchant 
ships,  their  schools  of  sacred  learning,  their  great 
statesmen  and  soldiers,  their  natural  philosophers, 
their  historians  and  their  poets.  What  nation 
ever  contended  more  manfully  against  overwhelm- 
ing odds  for  its  independence  and  religion  ?  What 
nation  ever,  in  its  last  agonies,  gave  such  signal 
proofs  of  what  may  be  accomplished  by  a  brave 
despair  ?  Let  us  open  to  them  the  door  of  the 
House  of  Commons.  Let  us  open  to  them  every 
career  in  which  ability  and  energy  can  be  dis- 
played. Till  we  have  done  this,  let  us  not  pre- 
sume to  say  that  there  is  no  genius  among  the 
countrymen  of  Isaiah,  no  heroism  among  the 
descendants  of  the  Maccabees." 

I  hope  that  I  shall  be  forgiven  for  the  above 
long  quotation,  but  those  words  apply  equally  as 
well  to  the  Russian  Jews  as  to  their  co-religionists 
of  eighty  years  ago.     But  if  it  had  been  Macaulay' s 


234        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

task  to  raise  his  voice  to-day  in  defence  of  the 
Russian  Jews,  he  could  have  found  much  weightier 
arguments  to  support  the  motion.  Macaulay 
could  not  say  that  the  English  Jews  had  been 
established  in  the  country  long  before  the  English- 
men themselves  ;  that  they  had  fought  the  battles 
of  Hastings  and  Agincourt !  It  is  true  that, 
according  to  William  of  Malmesbury,  the  Con- 
queror brought  some  Jews  from  Rouen  to  England, 
but,  as  is  well  known,  all  Jews  were  expelled  from 
England  during  the  reign  of  Edward  I  in  1290. 
And,  as  regards  earlier  times,  there  is  not  a  shred 
of  evidence  that  any  Jews  had  resided  in  England 
previous  to  the  Norman  Conquest. 

But  it  is  not  so  in  Russia.  The  Russian  Jews 
are  amongst  the  most  ancient  inhabitants  of  the 
Slavonic  Empire.  They  were  settled  in  the  Crimea 
as  far  back  as  the  third  century  B.C.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  economic  and  commercial  expansion 
that  followed  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the 
Great  in  Asia,  many  Jews  settled  in  the  Greek 
towns,  especially  in  the  ports.  Therefore  it  was 
somewhat  ludicrous  that  the  rulers  of  the  house 
of  Hoist ein-Gottorp  looked  down  upon,  and  des- 
cribed as  aliens  and  intruders,  some  of  the  most 
ancient  inhabitants  of  the  country.  In  the 
seventh  century,  a  Finnish  population,  the  Khazars, 
was  converted  to  the  Mosaic  faith  ;  the  kingdom 
of  the  Khazars  existed  until  the  end  of  the  tenth 
century,  when  it  was  destroyed  by  Sviatoslav, 
Prince  of  Kiev.  The  vanquished  Khazars  fled  to 
the  Crimea,  where  they  intermingled  with  the 
Jewish  communities  established  there.  Thus  there 
were  Jews  in  Russia  before  the  advent  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  certainly  long  before  the  Slavs  adopted 


THE   JEWS  AS   PIONEERS  285 

the  Christian  teaching  or  the  German  Jews  had 
immigrated  into  Poland.  These  ancient  Jewish 
dwellers,  before  and  after  the  conversion  of  the 
population  to  Christianity,  were  not  only  engaged 
in  commercial  pursuits,  but  exercised  all  the 
industries  of  the  other  inhabitants. 

From  an  ancient  chronicle  relating  to  the  in- 
vitation extended  by  the  inhabitants  of  Kiev  to 
Vladimir  Monomachus  to  accept  the  throne  then 
recently  vacated  by  Sviatopolk,  it  is  evident  that 
the  Jews  took  an  active  part  in  the  wars  waged  Igy 
the  various  Slavonic  princes.  They  w^ere  to  be 
found  in  the  different  camps,  taking  arms  for  one 
or  the  other  ruler.  The  famous  Russo- Jewish 
orientalist  Harkavy  published  some  important 
statements,  from  which  we  gather  that  there  were 
many  Jews  among  the  Cossacks  when  they  began 
to  organise  themselves  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
Thus  the  Jews  were  then — as  now — the  brothers- 
in-arms  of  the  Slavs  among  whom  they  dwelt. 
They  shared  their  life  and  defended  the  common 
cause  for  several  centuries.  Slav- and  Jew  fought 
side  by  side,  undertook  military  expeditions,  or 
defended  the  country  against  foreign  invaders. 
The  greatest  proof  that  the  Jews  shared,  with 
their  Slavonic  fellow-citizens,  the  hardships  of  war 
and  took  part  in  the  strifes  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Moscovy,  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  were  to  be 
found  among  the  prisoners  of  war. 

From  a  document  quoted  by  a  foremost  authority 
on  the  subject,  M.  N.  Gradovsky,  and  dated  1655, 
it  is  evident  that  under  the  reign  of  Tsar  Alexis 
Mikhailovitsh,  during  the  war  with  Poland,  there 
were  Jewish  soldiers  among  the  Lithuanian 
prisoners  sent  to  Kaluga.     None  of  these  docu- 


286        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

ments  concerning  the  Jews  of  ancient  Russia  bear 
any  trace  of  there  having  been  any  restrictive 
laws  against  them.  They  enjoyed  equal  civil  and 
political  rights  with  their  fellow  citizens,  and  it 
is  worthy  of  note  that  during  the  period  of  the 
Mongol  dominion  their  situation  remained  un- 
changed. The  Jews  of  ancient  Lithuania  and 
Russia,  like  their  co-religionists  in  Western  Europe, 
although  remaining  faithful  to  their  religion,  were 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  Slavs.  They  had  as- 
similated themselves  to  such  an  extent  that  they 
spoke  the  language  and  bore  Slavonic  names. 

"  The  Russian  Slavs,"  writes  Gradovsky,  **had 
entered  into  relationship  with  the  Jews  long  before 
the  Slavs  of  Poland,  and,  being  of  a  more  tolerant 
disposition  in  religious  matters,  treasured  them  as 
their  fellow  citizens,  whilst  the  Jews,  on  the  other 
hand,  saw  no  reason,  in  spite  of  their  observance  of 
the  law  of  the  Talmud,  to  keep  aloof." 

All  was  changed  however  with  the  accession  of 
the  Romanovs,  especially  when  Poland  was  prac- 
tically swallowed  up  by  the  Russian  Empire. 
The  Romanovs  have  always,  with  but  few  excep- 
tions, followed  a  hostile  policy  with  regard  to  the 
Jews.  The  Ukraine  fell  under  the  sway  of  Mos- 
cow during  the  reign  of  Tsar  Fedor  Alexeievitsh 
Romanov,  and  then  the  numerous  Jews  who 
lived  there  became  the  subjects  of  the  Tsars.  Al- 
though they  had  enjoyed  equal  rights  with  their 
fellow  citizens  under  the  rule  of  the  Polish  kings, 
they  were  at  once  treated  as  strangers  and  aliens 
by  the  Tsar  of  Moscow.  Restrictive  laws  and 
measures  against  the  Jew^s  became  the  order  of 
the  day.  Whilst  the  first  rays  of  liberty  and 
emancipation    w^ere    tinting     the     dark    sky    of 


THE   JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  287 

mediaevalism,  whilst  a  new  day  was  slowly  dawn- 
ing upon  the  Europe  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
the  Russian  Tsars  busily  engaged  themselves 
issuing  ukases  worthy  of  the  darkest  times  of  the 
ignorant  Middle  Ages.  Whilst  the  Renaissance, 
the  revival  of  classic  learning,  and  the  Reforma- 
tion were  slowly  helping  to  dissolve  the  veil  of  the 
barbarian  days,  the  veil  woven  by  illusion,  super- 
stition, and  fanaticism,  whilst  Western  thought 
was  gradually  emancipating  itself  from  the  old 
ecclesiastical  shackles,  Tsardom  vainly  pursued 
the  phantom  of  a  unity  of  faith — the  ancient 
dream  of  Rome  and  Bvzantium.  The  final  annexa- 
tion  of  a  portion  of  Poland  in  1772  made  a  great 
number  of  Jews  Russian  subjects,  henceforward 
to  be  treated  as  aliens  and  undesirables. 

M.  Gradovsky  has  endeavoured  to  prove  that 
Catherine  II  granted  the  Jews  equal  rights  with 
the  other  citizens  of  her  Empire,  but  the  Senate, 
in  spite  of  the  Imperial  ukase,  adopted  restrictive 
measures  against  them.  Gradovsky  evidently 
does  not  like  admitting  that  the  friend  of  Diderot 
and  D'Alembert  could  have  been  so  unjust  to 
millions  of  her  subjects.  An  impartial  study 
of  history  has,  however,  convinced  me  that  it 
was  Catherine  herself  who  inaugurated  an  era 
of  new  persecutions  against  the  Jews,  an  era 
of  severe  laws,  of  a  policy  which  was  foUovv'ed 
by  all  her  successors  upon  the  Russian  throne, 
excepting,  perhaps,  to  some  extent,  Alexander  II. 
The  ukase  that  definitely  fixed  the  zone  of  resi- 
dence of  the  Jews  in  the  Russian  Empire  was 
promulgated  on  June  24th,  1794.^     Catherine,  the 

^  Cf.  Leon  Allemand,  Le$    Sou§ranQes  des  Juifi  %n    Rutsie, 
Paris,  1907,  p.  49. 


238        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

friend  of  Diderot  and  Voltaire,  who  had  flirted 
with  philosophy  and  literature,  with  the  theories 
of  the  Encyclopaedists  and  with  themselves,  with 
the  men  and  their  doctrines,  became  a  fervent 
persecutor  of  the  Jews  in  the  interests  of  autocracy. 
And  yet  she  pretended,  writes  Allemand,^  that 
Montesquieu's  Esprit  des  Lois  had  inspired  her 
projects  for  a  constitution  !  But  Catherine  changed 
her  would-be— it  had  never  been  very  real  with 
her — policy  of  tolerance  as  soon  as  the  revolution 
broke  out. 

The  French  Revolution  made  this  Imperial 
philosopher  suddenly  turn  reactionary.  The 
French  Revolution  that  proclaimed  les  droits  de 
rhdmme,  the  Revolution  that  threatened  the 
thrones  of  monarchs  and  autocrats,  that  opened 
wide  the  doors  to  democratic  and  republican 
principles  :  this  revolution  so  disgusted  her, 
autocrat  that  she  was  at  heart,  that  she  beca,me 
the  violent  enemy  of  any  principle  of  freedom 
and  of  all  those  who  were,  so  to  speak,  the  spirit 
of  democracy,  of  justice,  equality  and  freedom 
incarnate.  The  Revolution  gave  the  Jews  emanci- 
pation and  freedom,  declared  them  to  be  men 
and  fellow  citizens.  The  Jews  had  taken  no  part 
in  the  French  upheaval  collectively,  but  the 
Russian  Empress  was  sufficiently  well  versed  in 
history  and  philosophy  to  understand  what  a 
danger  the  Jews  could  be  to  autocracy  or  to 
absolute  monarchy,  to  Imperialism  and  the  famous 
Raison  d'Etat  policy  upon  which  autocracy  and 
bureaucracy  have,  and  still  are,  basing  their 
arbitrary  and  despotic  measures,  their  secret 
diplomacies  and  their  wars  of  conquest  and  ex- 

1  I.e.,  p.  50. 


THE  JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  239 

pansion.  The  Jewish  sphit,  allowed  to  develop 
freely,  could  not  but  prove  subversive  of  all  these 
feudal  and  mediaeval  doetrines.  The  Empress 
therefore  decided  that  the  Jewish  spirit  should  be 
crushed;  all  Israel's  revolutionary  tendencies 
should  be  nipped  in  the  bud. 

Thus,  in  my  opinion,  Catherine  II  became  a 
Jew-hater,  not  only  because,  as  Allemand  states, 
she  did  not  wish  to  follow  the  liberal  policy  of  revo- 
lutionary France,  and  in  any  way  seem  to  approve 
of  the  principles  of  the  Revolution,^  but  beca,use 
she  was  astute  enough  to  understand  that  the 
Jew  emancipated  would  be  even  more  dangerous 
to  autocracy  than  the  Jew  oppressed.  The  revo- 
lutionary discontent  of  oppressed  and  enslaved 
Jews  would  only  be  the  revolt  of  slaves,  whilst  the 
discontent  of  emancipated  Jews,  equal  in  rights 
to  their  fellow  citizens,  would  be  the  revolt  of 
free  men.  A  revolution  made  by  men.  enjoying  a 
certain  amount  of  rights  and  freedom,  is  vastly 
more  dangerous  than  a  revolt  of  slaves,  chiefly 
because  it  is  not  inspired  solely  by  motives  of 
envy  and  greed,  but  by  an  idea,  by  the  principles 
of  justice  and  equality. 

"  En  resum6,'*  says  another  author,  "  6,  un  cer- 
tain moment  elle  prit  peur,  et  pour  accomplir 
son  metier  d'Imperatrice  elle  cut  rccours  aux 
mesures  represeives.  D^s  I'aurore  de  la  revolu- 
tion elle  avait  dit  adieu  aux  idees  de  liberte  et  de 
tolerance,  et  elle. avait  inaugure  un  regime  de  re- 
action. Aussitot  qu'elle  sentit  le  peril  pour  son 
Empire,  elle  redoubla  de  rigueur."  *  She  knew 
that  the  revolution  was  coming  slowly  but  surely. 

1  Cf.  Allemand,  p.  60. 

2  Ch.  de.,  Lariviere.  Cath$rim  le  Grand,  Paris,  1895,  p.  186. 


240        THE   RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Well  might  she  exclaim  :  "  De  pareils  d^sordfeS 
sont  impossible  en  Russie  "  ;  well  might  she  rely 
upon  the  inertia  of  the  masses,  yet  she  felt  that 
the  revolutionary  ideas  were  but  latent  in  the 
land  of  her  adoption,  and  that  the  throne  she  had 
usurped  would,  sooner  or  later,  totter  to  its  fall. 
Indeed,  Vorontzov  told  her  so  in  1792.  "  La  con- 
tagion sera  universelle.  Notre  ^loignement  nous 
garantira  pour  quelque  temps  ;  nous  serons  les 
derniers,  mais  nous  serons  aussi  les  victimes. 
Notre  tour  viendra,  plus  tard,  a  cause  de  notre 
eioignement,  mais  il  viendra."  ^  And  like  Voront- 
zov and  Kotshoubey,  Catherine  understood  that 
the  French  Revolution  was  not  only  French  but 
would  spread  over  the  world.  She  knew,  too,  that 
the  Russians  rejoiced  over  the  Revolution  and 
loudly  proclaimed  in  the  streets  of  Petrograd  that 
tyranny  was  now  dead  in  France  ! 

Catherine  II  therefore  became  a  reactionary. 
She  suppressed  liberalism  and  Freemasonry  in 
Russia.  She  sent  Novikov  to  Schluesselburg  and 
exiled  Radishtshev,  and  last,  but  not  least,  she 
inaugurated  a  new  era  of  persecutions  of  the 
Jews :  not  of  the  race  but  of  the  spirit.  She  felt 
sure  that  the  Jews,  if  they  embraced  Byzantine 
Christianity,  would  become  more  submissive  to 
Coesarism  !  And  so  all  the  Tsars  believed  ;  these 
ideas  were  philosophically  explained  by  the 
late  Pobiedonostzev.  But  whatever  motive  the 
Northern  Semiramis  had  for  her  attitude  towards 
the  Jews,  she  undoubtedly  inaugurated  a  policy 
of  repression  as  far  as  they  were  concerned.  From 
that  time  the  Jews  were  massed  in  the  towns  of 
the  Pale  of  Settlement,  as  in  the  mediaeval  Ghettos, 

1  Cf.  Larividre,  U.,  p.  190, 


Catherine  II  at  the  Time  of  the  French  Revolution, 


240] 


THE  JEWS  AS  PIONEERS  241 

and  all  the  restrictive  laws  passed  against  the 
Jews  by  the  Tsars  during  the  nineteenth  century 
were  based  upon  the  ukase  of  Catherine.  The  life 
of  the  Jews  of  Russia  henceforth  was  a  veritable 
inferno.  Prince  Demidov  San  Donato  has  well 
summed  up  their  situation  in  the  following  lines  : 

''  They  are  placed  on  a  footing  of  equality  with 
the  other  subjects  of  the  Tsar  as  far  as  taxes  and 
duties  are  concerned,  but  are  considered  as  aliens 
with  regard  to  civil  and  political  rights.  They 
have  all  the  burdens  and  responsibilities  of  the 
commonwealth,  but  they  neither  share  the  privi- 
leges nor  do  they  enjoy  the  same  protection  of 
the  law  as  their  fellow  citizens.*' 

For  long  the  Jews  of  Russia  looked  to  Western 
Europe  and  their  co-religionists  to  help  them. 
They  hoped  that  succour  would  come  from  them. 
They  had  evidently  quite  lost  the  sense  of  reality, 
of  topographical  orientation,  were  merely  con- 
vinced that  the  sun  of  liberty  would  rise  in  the 
West  instead  of  the  East.  But  the  hopes  of 
Russian  Jewry  in  this  respect  were  frustrated. 
Neither  Western  Europe,  nor  Western  Jewry,  in 
spite  of  efforts  made  by  those  who  were  not 
Zionists,  for  these  practically  impeded  emancipa- 
tion, brought  any  deliverance.  In  an  able  article 
that  serves  as  preface  to  M.  Semenoff's  book  on 
the  pogroms,  Mr.  Lucien  Wolf  blames  the  attitude 
of  the  Governments  of  Europe,  and  declares  that 
their  attitude  of  complaisance  made  the  pogroms 
and  oppression  possible,  and  that  their  "  blunted 
moral  sense  has  been  a  substantial  encouragement 
and  help  to  these  highly-placed  massacre-mongers." 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  pose  as  the  advocate  of  the 
very    elastic    moral    conscience    of    Europe.     Its 

16 


242        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

moral  indignation  can  so  easily  slip  into  tactful 
passivity  and  a  policy  of  laissez-faire. 

The  great  indignation  of  Europe  over  the  Congo 
atrocities  will  be  remembered  by  many ;  the 
pitiful  tales  of  the  cruelties  practised  created  an 
atmosphere  akin  to  that  which  animated  the  days 
of  the  Crusades.  The  number  of  people  ready  to 
play  Peter  of  Amiens  was  legion,  and,  finally,  the 
Congo  atrocities  proved  too  heavy  a  burden  for 
the  European  conscience.  Yet  when  the  Russian 
moujiks,  vodka-mad,  committed  dastardly  crimes 
and  indescribable  outrages,  when  the  Cossacks,  in 
the  name  of  the  Tsar,  let  loose  the  tide  of  brutality 
upon  innocent  men,  women  and  children,  Europe 
merely  replied  that  she  had  no  right  to  interfere 
in  the  internal  affairs  of  a  friendly  Powder  !  And 
when  a  few  quixotic  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  spoke  against  a  tyrannical  Government, 
they  were  told  to  recollect  themselves,  were  turned 
out  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  and  advised  to 
give  vent  to  their  feelings  in  Trafalgar  Square  or 
Hyde  Park  among  the  socialists,  itinerant  preachers, 
religious  cranks  and  suffragettes.  How,  indeed, 
does  the  honour  of  young  Russian  girls,  the  misery 
of  cultured  men  slaving  under  the  knout  and 
tortured  in  Siberia,  and  in  narrow  cells,  compare 
with  that  of  the  negroes  ?  Government  could  not 
interfere  in  the  one  instance — it  would  have  been 
rnauvais  ton — but  in  the  other,  it  was  a  moral 
duty,  especially  since  the  negroes  were  African, 
for  Nurse  Europe  looks  upon  herself  as  justified  in 
interfering  in  all  African  affairs.  Long  ago  we 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  European  Powers 
have  a  "  Black  and  White  "  political  conscience — 
that  is,  one  for  the  white  races  and  one  for  the  black 


THE  JEWS  AS  PIONEERS  243 

ones.  The  white  men  in  the  Empire  of  the  Tsar, 
or  in  Armenia,  were  supposed  to  be  eompetent  to 
take  care  of  themselves,  but  matters  are  different 
where  negroes  are  concerned  ;  they  cannot.  But 
to-day  the  poHtical  conscience  seems  to  have 
awakened  to  the  needs  of  both  races. 

Yet  if  Europe  was  guilty,  the  Jews  themselves 
were  not  free  of  blame.  Yes,  the  Jews  themselves, 
not  so  much,  perhaps,  those  w^ho  yearned  to  be 
saved  as  those  who  played  the  saviours.  The 
Russian  Jews,  the  majority  of  them  in  any  case, 
knew  exactly  what  they  wanted  ;  they  showed  it 
by  their  actions  ;  they  expressed  it  in  unmistak- 
able words.  They  demanded  the  abolition  of  all 
restrictive  laws  ;  they  claimed  equal  rights  with 
their  fellow-citizens,  and  they  knew  that  as  soon 
as  Russia  became  a  free  country  they  would, 
sooner  or  later,  obtain  their  emancipation.  There- 
fore they  fought,  in  self-defence,  against  the  auto- 
cratic and  bureaucratic  regime. 

When  it  was  bruited  that  Bulygin  wished  to 
deprive  the  Jews  of  the  right  of  sending  repre- 
sentatives to  the  First  Duma,  the  Jew^s  raised  a 
vehement  protest.  They  did  more  ;  they  erected 
barricades.  They  protested  and,  bleeding  from  a 
thousand  wounds,  they  fought  for  liberty.  And 
if  I  may  be  allowed  to  tell  the  truth  without 
offending  Western  European  Jews,  I  shall  go 
so  far  as  to  state  that  the  Russian  Jews  have  fought 
much  more  ardently  for  their  emancipation,  and 
certainly  made  greater  sacrifices,  than  did  their 
more  fortunate  co-religionists  in  either  France  or 
England.  French  Jews  towards  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century  had  to  meet  the  slight  opposi- 
tion of  a  Republican  Government  which,  in  itself, 


^44        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

was  obliged  to  subscribe  to  the  principles  of 
equality.  Moreover,  the  Jews  had  great  defenders, 
tu^h  as  Abbe  Gregoire  and  Mirabeau.  The  Eng- 
lish Jews,  who  had  a  Macaulay  to  champion  them, 
had  only  to  fight  with  an  assembly  of  English 
gentlemen,  and,  besides,  were  sure  of  the  support 
of  the  benevolent  rulers  of  the  House  of  Windsor, 
though  the  bluff  sailor  King  William  seems  to 
have  been  antagonistic  to  the  abolition  of  Jewish 
disabilities. 

Bvvt  it  was  far  otherwise  in  Russia.  There  were 
but  few  Macaulays,  no  Abbe  Gregoires,  and  if  a 
Herzenstein,  a  Kerensky,  a  Tshekheidze,  a  Milyoukov 
raised  their  voices,  they  were  either  silenced  by 
murderous  shots  or  cried  in  the  wilderness.  Be- 
sides, the  Romanovs  were  traditional  enemies  of 
the  Jews.  Alexis  Mikhailovitsh,  the  second  ruler 
of  the  house  of  Romanov,  refused  the  request  of 
the  King  of  Poland  that  his  Jewish  subjects  should 
be  allowed  to  trade  in  Russia.  And  again,  in  1749, 
Elizabeth  Petrovna,  "  la  Catin  du  Nord,"  as 
Frederick  II  called  her,  the  libertine  daughter  of 
Peter  the  Great,  whose  debaucheries  are  thoroughly 
known,  in  a  fit  of  pious  horror  expelled  her  phy- 
sician Sanchez  when  she  discovered  that  he  was  a 
Jew.  This  same  Imperial  lady  refused  to  grant 
any  privileges  to  her  Jewish  subjects,  even  though 
they  would  increase  the  revenues  of  the  State. 
'*  I  refuse  to  derive  any  benefit  from  the  enemies 
of  Christ,"  replied  the  daughter  of  the  Livonian 
servant,  Catherine  I.  And  as  for  Catherine  II, 
who,  as  some  maintain,  was  the  daughter  of 
Frederick  II,  we  have  seen  that  she  inaugurated  a 
new  era  of  persecution  of  the  Russian  Jews. 

This   hostility   against   the   Jews   was   also   in- 


THE  JEWS  AS  PIONEERS  245 

dulged  in  by  Nicholas  I,  Alexander  III  and 
Nicholas  II.  The  obstacles  which  the  Russian 
Jews  had  to  overcome  were  greater  and  more  in- 
surmountable than  those  against  which  the  Wes- 
tern Jews  had  to  fight.  The  emancipation  of  the 
latter  was  simply  the  logical  sequence  of  the 
general  principle  of  equality  of  all  the  citizens 
before  the  law.  Western  Jews  obtained  their 
rights  simply  because  they  were  lucky  enough  to 
be  living  under  the  rule  of  humane  kings  and  in 
the  midst  of  populations  possessed  by  a  sense  of 
justice.  The  Russian  Jews,  on  the  contrary,  were 
living  among  an  oppressed  people. 

Certainly,  judging  by  their  efforts,  the  Russian 
Jews  have  deserved  freedom  more  than  their  more 
fortunate  Western  brethren.  The  number  of 
Russian  Jews  who  lost  their  lives  in  the  struggle 
for  liberty,  nay,  even  of  those  who  fell  on  the  barri- 
cades of  Lodz,  is  far  greater  than  that  of  all  the 
martyrs  w^ho  fell  on  the  barricades  of  Europe. 
If  liberty  is  bought  with  blood,  then  the  Russian 
Jews  long  ago  paid  their  price  in  full. 

The  aims  of  Russian  Jew^y  w^ere  quite  clear  and 
defined  :  to  settle  the  Jewish  question  in  Russia 
itself.  But,  unfortunately,  the  curse  of  the  op- 
pressed is  alwaj^s  the  inconceivably  large  number 
of  their  would-be  saviours.  It  is  really  astonishing 
how  numerous  these  saviours  become.  The  streets 
of  Jacob  and  the  lanes  of  Israel  are  full  of  them. 
One  finds  them  in  the  East  and  one  finds  them  in 
the  West ;  they  dwell  in  Brick  Lane  and  they 
reside  in  Park  Lane.  Brick  Lane  shrieked  and 
went  into  hysterics  whenever  a  calamity  occurred, 
whilst  Park  Lane  Jewry  shivered  in  its  patent- 
leather  boots  and — ultimately — paid  the  expenses. 


246        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

But  both  the  East  and  the  West  had,  and  still 
have,  one  thing  in  common :  that  they  both 
committed  the  same  errors,  whether  in  sheer 
ignorance  or  obstinacy,  one  cannot  tell. 

All  these  would-be  saviours  endeavoured  to 
settle  the  Jewish  question  in  their  own  way  with- 
out in  the  least  troubling  themselves  to  consult 
those  whom  it  certainly  most  concerned:  the 
suffering  Jewish  masses  in  Russia.  These  saviours 
of  the  Jews  also  scorned  the  idea  of  saving  indi- 
viduals when  the  opportunity  offered.  "  What 
are  single  individuals  ?  They  do  not  count.  We 
want  to  save  the  millions,"  they  cried,  and  the 
natural  result  was  that  whilst  the  philanthropists 
were  discussing  and  scheming,  and  also  plotting 
and  fighting  among  themselves,  the  masses  were 
left  to  themselves,  and  finally,  growing  weary  of 
waiting,  decided  to  help  themselves.  It  is,  indeed, 
almost  inconceivable  that,  though  so  much  time 
and  energy  was  spent  by  influential  friends  of  the 
Russian  Jews  in  the  West  in  an  endeavour  to  find 
a  solution  of  the  Jewish  question  by  advocating 
this  or  that  scheme,  practically  nothing  was  done 
to  bring  influence  to  bear  upon  the  settlement  of 
the  Jewish  problem  in  Russia  itself.  That  the 
financiers  of  Europe  could  have  influenced  the 
Government  of  the  Tsar  I  have  never  had  any 
doubt.  Such  was  the  opinion  of  Stepniak  and  of 
many  leaders  of  the  liberal  movement  in  Russia. 
As  a  rule,  however,  the  Jewish  financiers  merely 
replied  that  they  did  not  control  the  money-markets 
of  the  world  to  the  extent  that  is  usually  imagined, 
but  surely,  where  there  is  a  will,  there  is  a  way  ! 

This  reminds  me  of  an  incident  that  happened 
more  than  half  a  century  ago.     Alexander  Herzen 


THE  JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  247 

was  compelled,  as  we  have  seen,  to  leave  Russia. 
He  fled  to  England,  where  he  started  his  paper 
The  Bell.  Herzen,  however,  was  a  rich  man,  and 
before  going  into  exile  he  had  converted  his  pro- 
perty into  State  bonds.  The  Russian  Government 
knew  the  numbers  of  Herzen' s  bonds,  so  when  they 
were  presented  for  payment,  after  Herzen' s  arrival 
in  London,  Nicholas  I,  in  the  hope  of  crushing  his 
enemy,  gave  orders  that  the  State  Bank  of  St. 
Petersburg  should  refuse  payment.  The  bank 
naturally  obeyed,  but,  fortunately  for  Herzen,  he 
found  a  champion  in  the  elder  Rothschild,  who 
informed  the  Tsar  that  as  Herzen' s  bonds  were 
as  good  as  any  other  Russian  bonds,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  conclude  the  insolvency  of  the  Russian 
Government.  Should  the  bonds  not  be  paid 
immediately,  he  would  at  once  declare  the  Tsar 
bankrupt  on  all  the  European  money-markets. 
Nicholas  I  was  beaten  ;  he  put  his  pride  in  his 
pocket  and  paid.  Herzen  himself  related  this 
story  in  The  Bell,  under  the  title  of  "  King  Roths- 
child and  Emperor  Nicholas  I." 

There  were  plenty  of  kings  in  the  monej'-markets 
of  the  world,  who,  if  they  had  but  combined  and 
concentrated  their  eiiorts,  could  have  forced 
Nicholas  II  to  waken  to  a  sense  of  justice.  But 
they  did  not.  Tant  pis.  Now,  the  Russian  Jews 
have  obtained  their  emancipation  by  their  own 
efforts.  They  have  fought  heroically  for  their 
liberty  and  New  Russia  will  not  forget  their 
sufferings  or  their  sacrifices  under  the  old  regime  ; 
it  will  not  forget  that  the  Russian  Jews  have  fought 
with  courage  and  perseverance  for  the  liberation 
of  Russia  from  the  yoke  of  tyranny  and  oppres- 
sion.    They  have  suffered  exile  and  prison,  soli- 


248        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

tary  confinement,  corporal  punishment,  Siberia, 
the  mines,  the  knout  and  the  nagayka  of  the 
Cossacks,  but  their  revolutionary  spirit  could  not 
be  crushed.  They  fought  for  their  very  lives. 
Yet  they  simply  asked  to  be  treated  as  their  co- 
religionists in  other  countries—as  human  beings — 
and  to  be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  protection  of  the 
same  laws  as  their  fellow  citizens.  They  were 
quite  ready  to  obey  those  laws,  to  pay  the  taxes, 
to  do  their  full  civic  duty,  to  be  faithful  sons  of 
the  fatherland,  did  it  but  grant  them  the  rights 
of  children ;  the  child,  beaten  and  tortured,  can 
scarcely  be  expected  to  love  its  heartless  step- 
mother or  to  wish  her  long  life  I 

Even  a  glance  at  the  history  of  the  Liberal 
movement  in  Russia  will  convince  any  one  that 
the  struggle  of  the  Jews,  not  only  for  their  own 
emancipation,  but  also  for  the  freedom  of  Russia 
and  the  Russian  moujik,  has  been  a  very  fierce  and 
bitter  one.  The  annals  of  the  fortresses  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  and  of  Schluesselburg,  the  Rus- 
sian bastilles,  contain  many  names  of  Jewish 
martyrs  who  died  for  the  sake  of  freedom.  And 
although  Jewish  revolutionaries  were  more  heavily 
punished  than  their  orthodox  colleagues,  their 
spirit  was  never  daunted.  "  I  have  never  heard," 
wrote  Stepniak,  "  that  such  punishment  had  pro- 
duced any  impression  upon  the  Jews,  and  now,  as 
before,  there  are  many  among  them  who  are 
quite  willing  to  give  up  their  all  for  the  better 
future  and  freedom  of  their  country.'? 

It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  small,  even 
insignificant,  amount  of  freedom  obtained  by  the 
Russian  Liberals  in  1905  and  1906  was  largely 
due  to  the  efforts  of  the  Jews. 


THE   JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  249 

Their  blood  has  saturated  the  Russian  soil,  from 
which,  like  the  soldiers  of  Cadmus,  the  avengers 
and  champions  of  liberty  have  come  forth,  armed 
and  booted. 

When  the  Constitutional  Democratic  Party  was 
dreaming  of  a  regime  somewhat  similar  to  that  of 
the  United  States  or  Great  Britain,  the  Liberals 
decided  that  the  abolition  of  all  class  privileges 
and  prerogatives,  the  emancipation  of  all  the 
citizens  dwelling  in  the  dominions  of  the  Tsar,  was 
their  first  and  most  sacred  duty.  But  even  in 
the  palmy  days  of  the  First  Duma  the  landed 
gentry  were  organised  to  oppose  any  measures 
that  tended  to  remove  Jewish  disabilities.  And 
the  peasants  who  were  willing  to  vote  for  the 
abolition  of  the  restrictive  laws  against  the  Jews, 
in  so  far  as  trade  and  commerce  were  concerned, 
were  resolutely  decided  to  oppose  vehemently  the 
admission  of  Jews  to  civil  or  State  service.  They 
could  not  reconcile  themselves  to  the  prospect  of 
a  Jew  becoming  a  Tshinovnik  and  ruling  over 
Christian  souls.  But  need  we  be  astonished  at  the 
prejudices  inculcated  in  the  minds  of  the  ignorant, 
uneducated  Russian  moujik  by  the  agents  of 
Tsardom  ?  The  objections  raised  in  the  English 
Parliament  against  the  abolition  of  Jewish  dis- 
abilities were  very  similar.  Members  of  the  House 
of  Commons  who  would  indignantly  have  repudi- 
ated the  thought  of  oppressing  the  Jews,  could  not 
reconcile  themselves  to  the  idea  of  their  possessing 
political  power  in  England.  And  what  about  the 
hue  and  cry  raised  by  the  Anti-Semitic  press  in 
modern  England,  during  a  war  of  liberation,  a 
war  for  right  and  justice,  at  the  appointment  of 
a  Jew  as  Secretary  for  India  ?    But  nevertheless 


250        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

the  Russian  Jews  still  continued  their  fight  against 
tyranny. 

In  the  great  struggle  which  the  Russian  people 
have  fought  against  Tsardom,  against  autocracy, 
against  the  descendants  of  that  "  cretin  alcoholique 
Pierre  III,"  German  Duke  of  Holstein-Gottorp, 
the  Jews  have  taken  an  active  part.  ''  The 
heroism,"  says  a  writer  in  La  Revue — who  adds,  by 
the  way,  that  he  is  not  himself  a  Jew — "-which 
the  Jews  have  manifested  in  this  gigantic  struggle 
calls  to  mind  their  formidable  resistance  to  the 
Roman  Empire.  They  have  once  more  shown  to 
the  world  that  the  spirit  of  sacrifice,  the  courage 
and  ingenuity,  which  characterised  their  fight 
against  Titus  have  not  died  out  of  the  Jewish 
soul."  ^  They  have  once  more  revealed  them- 
selves in  the  supreme  fight  for  preservation. 
"  Russia,"  continues  the  writer  of  the  article,  "  will 
owe  the  greatest  part  of  her  freedom  to  the  Jews. 
Without  them  the  Liberals  would  never  have  been 
able  to  obtain  a  victory." 

The  heroism  of  the  members  of  the  Bund  not 
only  stupefied  the  reactionaries,  but  also  served 
as  a  model  to  the  fighters  for  freedom,  the  pioneers 
of  the  Russian  Revolution.  There  was  no  poli- 
tical organisation  in  the  vast  Empire  that  was  not 
influenced  by  Jews  or  directed  by  them.  The 
Social  Democratic,  the  Socialist  Revolutionary 
Parties,  the  Polish  Socialist  Party,  all  counted 
Jews  among  their  leaders.  Plehve  was,  perhaps, 
right  when  he  said  that  the  struggle  for  political 
emancipation  in  Russia  and  the  Jewish  question 
were    practically    identical.^    The     "  Bund,"     or 

1  Cf.  La  Revue,  January  1906,  p.  31. 

a  Cf.  Ular,  La  Revolution  Ruase,  Paris,  p.  290. 


THE  JEWS   AS  PIONEERS  251 

General  Union  of  the  Jewish  working  men  was 
founded  in  1897.  It  is  a  poHtical  and  economic 
association  of  the  Jewish  proletariat,  "  at  first 
averse  to  all  national  distinctions,  but  gradually 
impregnated  with  Jewish  national  sentiment."  ^ 
It  made  active  propaganda  in  Yiddish,  published 
numerous  pamphlets  and  such  organs  as  The 
Jewish  Working-man^  The  Voice  of  the  Working- 
men. 

During  the  reign  of  Alexander  II  the  Jews  en- 
joyed certain  favours,  but,  neverthless,  they  took 
part  in  the  movement  of  liberation.  The  Jewish 
intelligenzia  assimilated  itself  with  the  Russian 
intelligcnzia  during  the  seventies,  just  as  the 
Jewish  proletariat  was  destined  to  make  common 
cause  with  the  Russian  proletariat  later  on.  Thus, 
the  revolutionary  movement — that  is,  the  move- 
ment for  freedom  and  equality — has  counted  many 
Jews  among  its  adherents  for  the  last  forty  years. 
The  names  of  Zoundelevitsh,  Mlodetsky,  Viteni- 
berg,  Kogan-Bernstein,  and  above  all,  Gershouni, 
are  well  known  and  honoured  among  the  pioneers 
of  freedom.^ 

The  Bund  has  organised  numerous  strikes  in 
Russia :  between  1897  and  1900  alone,  there 
w^ere  312  strikes  at  which  over  27,890  working 
men  took  part.^  When  I  say  that  the  Bund  is 
a  proletarian  or  labour  organisation,  it  must  not 
be  imagined  that  only  manual  labourers  belong  to 
it.  I  have  already  pointed  out  that  there  are 
two  proletariates,  the  manual  and  the  intellectual, 

1  L.  Wolf,  Edinburgh  Review,  July  1917,  p.  309. 

2  Cf.  E.  Semenoff,  Une  page  de  la  contre-revolution,  Paris, 
1908,  p.  36. 

3  Cf.  Eb6rlin,  Les  Juifa  Busses,  p.  43, 


252         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

and  perhaps  of  the  two  the  latter  has  suffered, 
and    is    suffering,    more   than    the    former.     This 
latter  proletariat    may  be    called  "  La  mis  ere  en 
habit  noir."     Many  members  of  the  Bund  belong 
to  the  intellectual   proletariat.      The  members  of 
the  Bund  have  never  hesitated  to  show  an  example 
of  self-sacrifice  to  the  fighters  for  freedom.     They 
indeed  deserve  the  appellation  of  pioneers  of  the 
Russian    Revolution.     They    have    suffered    and 
bled  upon  the  altar  of  Russian  freedom,  and  have 
fought  heroically  for  their  Jewish  brethren.     They 
Avere  sent  to  prison,  the  mines  and  Siberia  ;    in- 
deed, the  victims  of  this  revolutionary  party  are 
proportionately  greater  than  those  of  other  social- 
democratic   parties.     The   Jewish   revolutionaries, 
holocausts    devoured    by    Moloch    Tsardom,    are 
legion  ;   they  have  written  with  their  heart's  blood 
the  history  of  the  Russian  struggle  for  freedom. 
The  number  of  the  Bundists  arrested,  imprisoned 
and  deported  amounted  to  1,000  during  the  years 
1897-1900,  and  to  2,180  between  1901  and  1903. 
Altogether,  from  March  1903  to  November  1904, 
384    politicals     passed     through     the    prison     of 
Alexandrovskane.     The  following  is  the  per  cent- 
age  of  these  prisoners  according  to  their  nationality  : 
53*9  per  cent.  Jews,  26*4  per  cent.  Russians,  10*4 
per  cent.  Poles,  5*9  per  cent.  Georgians,  1*5.  per 
cent.  Esthonians,  Letts  and  Lithuanians,  and  1*9 
per  cent,  other  nationalities. 

As  for  the  women,  64*3  per  cent,  were  Jewesses.^ 
Plehve  maintained  that  80  per  cent,  of  the  revolu- 
tionaries in  Russia  were  Jev/s. 

1  Cf.   Eberlin,  I.e.,  p.  47 ;    J.  Melnik,  Buasen  uber  Buisland, 
Frankfort,  1916,  pp.  585-586. 


CHAPTER   XII 

ISRAEL'S    CRY   FOR   JUSTICE 

The  Jews  of  Russia  were  also  opposed  to  auto- 
cracy for  religious  reasons.  Autocracy  meant 
unity  of  faith,  the  triumph  of  the  Orthodox 
Church  at  the  expense  of  all  other  religions  and 
beliefs.  Liberty  of  conscience  is  one  of  the  tenets 
of  Judaism.  Froselytism  has  never  been  the 
appanage  of  the  Jew.  To  save  the  soul  of  man  by 
fire  and  sword,  by  crucifying  his  body,  by  burning 
it  on  the  stake  or  torturing  it  in  the  subterranean 
vaults  of  a  cruel  Inquisition,  has  been  the  policy 
of  Catholicism,  but  never  of  Judaism,  in  whicli 
it  is  at  one  with  Protestantism  as  distinguished 
from  Missionarism.  The  Jews  were  thus  opposed 
to  Russian  autocracy,  which  wanted  to  convert 
them  to  the  orthodox  faith  by  force.  Tsardom 
offered  them,  if  not  the  liberty  of  the  West,  a 
liberty  which  even  its  orthodox  subjects  did  not 
possess,  at  least  equality  with  all  the  other  slaves 
of  the  vast  Empire.  It  was  still  slavery  but  a 
gilded  slavery — a  social  state  preferable  to  that 
which  was  their  lot  for  centuries.  And  what  were 
the  conditions  of  Tsardom  ?  Simply  that  Israel 
should  abandon  its  religion  and  its  God  and  em- 
brace the  faith  of  Byzantium.  Israel  refused  ;  it 
preferred   to    cling   to    its    ancient    beUefs,    thus 

253 


254        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

proving  that  without  reUgion  the  Jewish  nation  has 
no  raison  d'etre  and  simply  ceases  to  exist. 

In  other  words,  the  existence  of  Israel,  con- 
sidered as  a  separate  national  unit,  is  intimately 
connected  with  religion,  which  is  its  fundamental 
principle.  A  Jew  who  is  not  a  nationalist  is  still 
a  Jew,  but  a  Jewish  nationalist  who  has  embraced 
another  religion,  or  who  has  no  religion  at  all, 
who  believes  neither  in  God  nor  in  the  devil,  is  no 
longer  a  Jew ;  and  when  he  calls  himself  a  Jewish 
nationalist,  he  is  merely  playing  with  words, 
unaware  of  the  illogism  into  which  such  an  atti- 
tude must  lead  him.  The  theory  of  Jewish 
nationalism,  independently  of  religion,  is  based 
upon  wrong  premises  and  is  utterly  illogical. 
Had  all  the  Jews  in  Russia  yielded  to  the  tempta- 
tions of  State  and  Church,  and  embraced  Chris- 
tianity in  the  fond  hope  that  nevertheless  they 
would  be  a  separate  national  unity,  there  would 
have  been  no  Jews  to-day  in  Russia,  and  not  only 
would  the  so-called  Jewish  question  have  disap- 
peared long  ago,  but  there  v/ould  have  been  no 
so-called  Jewish  nationalistic  tendencies  nowa- 
days. 

Thus  the  Jews  of  Russia  have  truly  been  among 
the  pioneers  of  the  Russian  Revolution  and  shared 
with  their  fellow  citizens  their  anxiety  to  shake 
off  the  yoke  of  Tsardom.  They  knew  full  Avell 
that  a  Republic,  or  even  a  Constitutional  Monarchy, 
could  not  but  proclaim  the  principle  of  "  droits  de 
rhomme  et  du  citoyen,"  which  meant  the  emanci- 
pation of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  commonwealth, 
irrespective  of  race  and  religion.  I  venture, 
however,  to  affirm,  most  emphatically,  that  even 
had  the  Jews  enjoyed  equal  riglits  in  Russia  and 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        255 

not  been  submitted  to  special  exclusive  laws, 
they  would  nevertheless  have  furnished  a  vast 
contingent  to  the  revolutionary  forces.  This  ethnic 
or  religious  group — I  am  not  now  discussing  the 
question  whether  the  Jews  are  a  nation  or  a 
religious  community — could  not  but  be  an  opponent 
of  Tsardom  and  autocracy.  It  was  bound  to  be 
an  inveterate  enemy  of  the  policy  of  Byzantium 
that  incarnated  the  spirit  of  Imperialism,  a  policy  of 
conquest  and  expansion,  and  was  opposed  to  both 
the  ideals  of  the  principle  of  nationality  and  to  the 
universalism  and  internationalism  of  the  Prophets. 
For,  apart  from  the  political,  religious  and  eco- 
nomic causes  which  threw  the  Jews  of  Russia  into 
the  arms  of  the  Revolution  and  made  thousands 
of  them,  men  and  women,  sacrifice  their  lives  upon 
the  altar  of  liberty,  face  prison,  exile,  Schluessel- 
biu'g,  solitary  confinement,  Siberia,  the  mines 
and  death,  there  were  other  reasons  for  their  atti- 
tude. They  are  to  be  found  in  the  revolutionary 
spirit  inherent  in  the  Jew.  When  I  say  revo- 
lutionary spirit,  I  mean  the  spirit  that  thirsts 
for  liberty  and  independence  as  it  is  compatible 
with  truth,  right,  justice  and  equality.  The  cry 
for  justice  and  equality  uttered  by  the  Prophets 
still  resounds  in  the  ears  of  the  Jew  wherever  he 
is.  It  was  the  sentiment  of  justice  and  equality 
which  gave  birth  to  Christianity  in  the  midst  of 
Judaism. 

Throughout  history  the  spirit  of  the  Jew  has 
always  been  revolutionary  and  subversive,  but 
subversive  w4th  the  purpose  of  building  upon  the 
ruins.  It  is  progressive  and  evolutionary  ;  even 
in  its  first  national  establishment  it  contained  the 
seeds    of   universalism    which    were    destined    to 


256        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

blossom  forth  and  bear  fruit  in  the  ages  to  come. 
Onwards,  ever  onwards,  is  the  motto  of  the  Jewish 
spirit.  The  Jew,  therefore,  who  desires  a  return 
to  the  past,  who  ignores  the  laws  of  evolution  and 
progress,  and  the  steps  his  own  race  has  made  in 
advance  of  other  nations  by  throwing  off  the 
shackles  of  narrow  nationalism  in  the  great  march 
towards  the  true  goal  of  humanity,  when  all  men 
will  be  brothers,  when  there  will  be  no  difference 
between  classes,  tribes,  nations  and  peoples — in 
a  word,  the  march  towards  the  great  and  glorious 
ideal  of  a  ''  confraternity  of  men  "  instead  of  the 
empty,  meaningless  and  contradictory  conception 
of  a  "  Society  of  Nations" — that  Jew  is  unfaithful 
to  the  spirit  of  Judaism.  The  Jewish  spirit  has 
always  yearned  for  justice,  truth  and  equality  : 
these  are  the  fundamental  principles  of  Israel. 
They  are  embodied  in  the  cry  that  rings  through 
the  words  of  the  Prophets,  that  was  echoed  by 
the  first  teachers  of  Christianity.  It  was  a  pro- 
test, a  revolt  against  iniquity  and  inequality.  The 
first  Christians  w^ere  therefore  the  good  Jews — or 
the  good  Jews  were  the  first  Christians.  And 
even  to-day,  if  one  analysed  religious  sentiments 
closely,  one  might  find  that  the  Jews  and  not  the 
Catholics  were  the  people  who  most  tenaciously 
cling  to  Christian  morals. 

There  was  therefore  practically  no  difference 
between  the  real  Jews — Jews  inspired  by  the 
sentiments  of  justice  and  equity,  and  a  spirit  of 
revolt  against  iniquity,  political,  social  or  economic 
■ — and  the  first  Christians.  But  when  Christianity, 
under  the  influence  of  Greek  and  Roman  thought, 
despairing  of  ever  securing  political  and  social 
equality  in  the  world,  consoled  its  followers  with 


o 

w 

CO 

« 

o 

K 
O 

o 


H 

CO 

12; 

i-i 
o 


*--- 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        257 

*'  a  kingdom  to  come  "  where  all  would  be  equal, 
the  Jews  and  Christians  parted  ways.  It  has  beea 
pointed  out  that  because  the  Jew  did  not  enter- 
tain the  belief  in  future  compensation  (he  only- 
accepted  the  theory  of  immortality  at  a  much 
later  date,  when  he  came  under  the  influence  of 
Parsism)  he  could  not  submit  to  the  misfortunes 
of  life.  Whilst,  therefore,  the  peoples  and  nations 
who  believed  in  a  *'  Beyond,"  who  found  consola- 
tion in  the  sweet  chimera  of  compensation,  of 
reward  and  punishment  after  life,  of  heaven  and 
hell,  bowed  their  heads  and  resigned  themselves 
to  the  misfortunes  of  earthly  life,  to  illness  and 
poverty,  the  Jew  alone,  averse  both  to  the  fatalism 
of  the  Moslem  and  to  the  spirit  of  resignation  of 
the  Christian,  replied  by  revolt. 

Thus  these  inveterate  idealists  who  conceived 
the  idea  of  one  God,  became  the  most  determined 
sensualists.^  "  It  was  their  conception  of  life  and 
death  that  furnished  the  Jews  with  their  revo- 
lutionary spirit."  These  remarks  of  my  late 
lamented  friend  seem  to  me  to  be  only  partially 
correct.  One  need  not  be  a  disbeliever  in  a  future 
life,  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  to  be  an  ardent 
partisan  of  justice  and  equality.  If  it  were  so, 
it  would  logically  follow  that  only  those  who  do 
not  accept  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  exist- 
ence of  a  **  Beyond,"  could  be  inspired  by  the 
spirit  of  revolution,  could  yearn  for  justice  and 
social  equality,  and  that  all  those  who  proclaim 
themselves  as  being  inspired  by  these  ideals  must 
all  be  atheists  and  materialists  who  look  upon 
the  Beyond  as  a  product  of  the  imagination,  a 
superstition,  or,  if  they  still  profess  to  believe  in 
*  Cf.  B.  Lckzare,  AntisemiHame,  I.e. 

17 


258        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

it,  are  simply  hypocrites  and  liars  !  But  it  would 
also  follow  that  the  only  logical,  honest  Christians 
are  the  anchorites  who  despise  life,  and  that  the 
true  believer  in  the  Beyond,  in  after  reward  and 
punishment,  should  court  suffering  and  oppression 
so  as  to  obtain  a  larger  share  of  eternal  bliss.  The 
logical  position  of  humanity  would  then  be  this  : 
All  those  who  are  reformers,  social  reformers, 
innovators,  apostles  of  justice  and  equality,  who 
are  anxious  for  the  amelioration  of  the  suffering 
classes,  do  not  believe  in  a  world  to  come,  in  God 
or  in  the  devil ;  and  all  those  who  do  not  believe 
in  a  next  world,  in  a  Beyond,  must  be  inspired  by 
a  spirit  of  justice  and  equality.  Furthermore,  all 
those  who  profess  to  be  religious  and  yet  pretend 
to  be  working  for  the  alleviation  of  suffering  are 
hypocrites  and  liars. 

In  reahty,  however,  the  case  is  quite  different. 
We  may  be  firmly  convinced  of  the  eternal  ex- 
istence of  the  soul,  of  reward  and  punishment, 
of  heaven  and  hell,  but  we  may  also  feel  that 
no  reward  in  a  world  to  come  can  be  adequate 
compensation  for  suffering  here  below.  Must 
one  really  conclude  that  because  some  men,  who 
do  not  believe  in  a  Beyond,  are  anxious  to  see 
justice  upon  the  earth,  that  all  those  who  are 
partisans  of  justice  in  this  world  do  not  believe  in 
a  Beyond  ?  Genius,  for  instance,  may  be  inclined 
to  madness,  but  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
an  imbecile  is  the  only  sane  and  reasonable  per- 
son !  No ;  I  maintain  that  justice  and  social 
equality  have  always  been  the  ideals  of  the  Jew, 
whether  he  believed  in  a  world  to  come,  in  a 
Beyond  or  no.  What  the  Jews  could  not  accept 
from  Christianity,  as  taught,  not  by  the  Saviour, 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE         259 

but  by  the  Roman  Church,  was  to  submit  to 
slavery  and  oppression,  to  allow  the  usurpers,  the 
momentary  victors  in  the  battle  for  political  and 
economic  power,  to  remain  in  undisturbed  posses- 
sion of  their  unjust  and  dishonestly  acquired 
wealth  and  dominance,  be  it  political,  social  or 
economic.  From  Isaiah  down  to  Lassalle,  the 
cry  for  justice  and  equality  has  been  reiterated  by 
the  Jews,  but  it  has  always  been  universal  justice, 
for  the  cry  of  a  collectivity  for  justice  for  itself, 
is,  in  reality,  not  free  from  selfishness. 

"  To  hasten  the  coming  of  real  justice  upon 
earth,  to  distribute  to  every  one  the  greatest  pos- 
sible sum  of  well-being  in  this  world,"  such  is 
part  of  the  mission  of  Israel.  "  This  idea,"  writes 
a  Christian  author  who  cannot  be  accused  of  too 
great  a  sympathy  for  the  Jews,  "was,  if  not  un- 
known to  the  old  Aryan  societies,  at  least  placed 
on  a  secondary  plane."  ^  It  seemed  to  the  Aryan 
quite  just  and  natural  that  the  powerful  and  the 
rich  should  rule  over  the  poor  and  the  weak. 
Every  revolution  of  the  weak  and  oppressed  was 
quelled  by  the  mighty,  the  usurpers  of  power  and 
wealth.  And  even  the  best  among  the  Aryans, 
the  philosophers  and  thinkers,  consoled  the  slaves, 
the  proletarians,  with  the  hope  of  a  future  life 
where  things  would  be  different.  Such  a  phil- 
osophy could  not  satisfy  the  Jew.  It  is  in  this 
world  that  "  this  arch -type  of  a  revolutionary  " 
wanted  to  see  justice  reign.  Long  before  they 
had  been  formulated  in  French,  the  principles  of 
Droits  de  Vhomme  had  been  announced  in  Hebrew.' 

It  has  further  been  maintained  that  the  Jew, 

1  Cf.  Muret,  U Esprit  Juif,  Paris,  1901,  p.  46. 
a  Ibid.,  p.  49. 


260         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

being  an  individualist,  is  unable  to  sacrifice  him- 
self for  the  collectivity.  "  The  Jew,"  writes. 
Sombart,  "  is  politically  an  individualist.  He  is 
the  born  representative  of  a  liberal  conception."  * 
But  the  individualism  of  the  Jew,  which  I  recog- 
nise and  admit,  does  not  exclude  a  readiness  to 
fight  for  a  collectivity — for  a  collective  ideal,  as 
long  as  that  ideal  tends  to  procure  happiness  for 
all  the  individuals,  without  exceptions,  that  con- 
stitute the  collectivity. 

Now  let  us  see  what  is  a  collective  ideal  ?  A 
collectivity  is  an  agglomeration  of  individuals, 
some  of  whom  are  happy,  mighty,  rich  and  power- 
ful, whilst  others  are  unhappy  and  drag  the  chains- 
of  misery,  poverty  and  slavery  about  with  them. 
If  men  were  therefore  to  fight  and  die  for  the  con- 
servation of  such  a  state  of  affairs,  they  would  no 
longer  be  fighting  for  a  collectivity  but  for  certain^ 
individuals,  for  a  privileged  class.  This  the  Jew  may 
refuse  to  do.  He  will  fight  and  die,  willingly,  for 
an  amelioration,  for  a  social  change,  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  a  State  in  which  all  the  individuals  shall 
enjoy  equal  rights  and  happiness.  Only  such  a 
society,  or  a  collectivity  based  upon  such  principles — 
i.e.  in  which  all  the  individuals  are  happy — may 
be  called  a  truly  collective  ideal,  and  for  such  a 
collective  ideal  the  Jew  has  never  refused  ta 
fight  and  to  die,  for  it  is  in  accordance  with  hi& 
inherent  individualism. 

Individualism  is  opposed  to  the  sacrifice  of 
some  individuals  for  the  benefit  of  other  indi- 
viduals who  style  themselves  a  collectivity,  but 
it  is  never  opposed  to  the  sacrifice  of  one  indi- 

1  Cf.   W.  Sombart,  Die  Juden  u.  daa  WirtscJiaftaleben,  Berlin^ 
1911,  p.  318. 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        261 

vidual  for  a  collectivity  in  which  all  individuals 
hold  equal  rights,  powers  and  privileges.  In  other 
words,  the  Jew  has  never  refused  to  fight  and  to 
die  for  a  collective  ideal,  truly  collective  in  so  far 
as  it  represented  the  happiness  of  all  individuals 
constituting  the  collectivity  in  question.  Thus, 
Jewish  individualism  does  not  exclude  sacrifice 
for  a  collectivity  of  individuals  in  which  all  are 
equal.  The  Jew  has  fought  and  died,  and  will 
continue  to  do,  for  social  amelioration,  but  not 
for  social  status  quo. 

Judaism  told  its  followers  that  man  is  a  slave 
of  God  but  not  a  slave  of  slaves ;  i.e.  that  all  men 
should  be  equal.  The  leader  should,  at  the  ut- 
most, be  intellectually  superior,  a  man  of  science 
and  erudition,  but  not  he  who  has  been  placed 
by  chance  of  birth  or  blind  hazard  upon  the  top 
of  the  social  ladder.  Authority  based  upon  such 
principles  is  distasteful  to  the  Jew  and  to  the 
Jewish  spirit.  The  old  State  ideal  of  the  Jews, 
when  they  had  a  political  state,  was  therefore 
anarcho-theocratic.^  Catholicism  and  autocracy, 
therefore,  which  based  their  claims  upon  divine 
right,  or  right  of  birth,  could  never  appeal  to  the 
Jews.  Judaism,  being  based  upon  the  principle 
of  individualism,  as  is  abundantly  shown  in  the 
Bible  and  the  Talmud,  could  not  but  be  opposed 
to  autocracy,  justifying  all  its  laws  of  oppression 
by  the  idea  of  Raison  d'Etat. 

Individualism  means  that  the  interests  of  the 
individual  should  not  at  any  moment  be  sacrificed 
for  the  collectivity,  since  the  collectivity,  being  an 
aggregation  of  individuals,  loses  its  raison  d'etre^ 
once  the  rights  of  the  single  individual  are  ignored. 

1  Cf.  Muret,  Z.c,  pp.  34,  35. 


262         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

The  Raison  d'Etat  principle  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  it,  for  it  never  hesitates  to  sacrifice  the  indi- 
vidual to  this  phantom  idea,  an  idea  that  at  the 
best  is  only  advantageous  to  the  governing  classes, 
who,  d  la  Louis  XIV,  could  always,  at  all  epochs 
and  in  all  countries,  exclaim :  "  L'Etat,  c'est 
nous."  Raison  d^Etat,  therefore,  simply  means  the 
sacrifice  of  individuals  that  belong  to  the  op- 
pressed classes  for  the  benefit  of  the  ruling  classes. 
The  Russian  Jews  have  thus  been  among  the 
principal  opponents  of  Tsardom,  and  have  swelled 
the  ranks  of  the  pioneers  of  the  Revolution,  for 
political,  religious,  economic  and  psychological 
reasons. 

One  of  the  best  proofs  that  the  Russian  Jews 
have  not  fought  in  the  ranks  of  the  pioneers  of 
the  Revolution  solely  for  their  own  benefit,  but 
for  Russia,  their  country,  may  have  been  found 
in  the  strenuous  opposition  of  Jews  of  all  shades 
of  opinion  to  the  formation  of  a  Jewish  regiment 
in  Great  Britain.  This  regiment,  we  were  told, 
was  to  be  used  for  a  specifically  Jewish  purpose. 
But  thousands  of  Russian  Jews  returned  "  home," 
went  to  Russia  to  serve  in  the  Russian  army  and 
to  fight  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  Slavs  for 
the  Russian  Revolution  and  freedom  and  against 
German  militarism.  And  those  who  had  remained 
in  Great  Britain  replied  :  "  We  are  fighting  not 
as  Jews  but  as  Englishmen  or  Russians.  Your 
cause  is  our  cause,  and  your  country  is  our  coun- 
try." One  cannot  but  applaud  such  sentiments  I 
It  is  not  for  me  to  criticise  the  decision  of  the  War 
Ofiice,  but  I  venture  to  say  that  from  a  Jewish 
point  of  view  the  idea  of  a  Jewish  regiment  for 
*'  a    specifically    Jewish    purpose "    is    ridiculous. 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE       268 

That  is  the  reason  why  both  the  plan  and  its 
realisation  have  been  hailed  and  applauded  by 
the  entire  anti-semitic  press.  It  is  clear  to  any 
impartial  observer  that  the  anti-semitic  scribblers 
are  already  "  rubbing  their  hands "  anticipating 
excellent  copy. 

At  the  present  moment,  however,  I  am  con- 
cerned with  the  idea  of  a  Jewish  regiment  only 
in  so  far  as  it  affects  the  sentiments  of  Russian 
Jews  and  their  activity  as  pioneers  of  the  Russian 
Revolution.  As  such,  it  was  only  logical  that  they 
should  have  opposed  the  realisation  of  the  plan 
with  all  the  power  at  their  disposal.  "  I  cannot 
imagine,"  wrote  an  old  volunteer,^  ''  the  Govern- 
ment conscripting,  say,  a  unit  of  Sinn  Feiners  and 
naming  it  the  '  Catholic  Regiment '  without  a  pro- 
test being  raised."  "  We  are  fighting  the  German 
nation,"  wrote  another  correspondent.  "  The 
question  is  a  national,  not  a  religious  one."  * 

'*  Our  religion  and  descent,"  wrote  a  third 
eminent  correspondent,  "  are  no  concern  of  the 
State."  ^  It  is  evident  that  a  soldier  fighting  in 
the  ranks  of  the  Allies  can  only  be  asked  to  what 
nationality  he  belongs,  of  which  State  he  is  a 
citizen,  but  not  which  are  his  metaphysical  ideas 
about  God,  or  in  which  place  he  is  in  the  habit  of 
worshipping  the  Deity.  He  may  pray  in  English 
or  in  Hebrew,  at  the  top  of  Mont  Blanc  or  on 
the  waves  of  the  ocean,  in  the  Synagogues  at 
Salonica  or  in  the  Cathedral  of  Rheims.  "  Wher- 
ever you  call  me,"  says  the  God  of  Israel,  "  I 
shall  hear  you."  The  idea  of  a  Jewish  regiment, 
I   say  it  most   emphatically,   for  "a   specifically 

1  Cf.  Jewish  Chronicle,  August  24th,  1917,  p.  15. 
»  lUd,  3  Ibid.,  p.  16. 


264        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Jewish  purpose,"  viz.  the  conquest  of  Palestine, 
is  a  misrepresentation  of  Jewish  ideals,  of  Jewish 
sentiments. 

The  question  of  enlisting  the  non-naturalised 
Russian  Jews  living  in  Great  Britain  or  transport- 
ing them  to  Russia  agitated  public  opinion  and 
led  to  much  discussion  and  many  protests.  "  Fair- 
play  "  is  the  appanage  of  the  Briton.  Now  let 
me  say  at  the  outset  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  only 
right  that  every  man  of  military  age  and  medically 
fit  should  do  his  duty  by  swelling  the  ranks  of 
those  who  are  fighting  a  desperate  foe  and  defend- 
ing the  cause  of  justice.  This  is  so  evident  that 
it  requires  no  further  elucidation  or  pieces  justi- 
§catives. 

The  British  Government  had  a  perfect  ethical 
right  thus  to  speak  to  the  non-naturalised  Russian 
Jews  in  England :  "  Now  that  we  have  intro- 
duced conscription,  you,  strangers  at  our  gates, 
must  quickly  make  up  your  minds :  Join  the 
British  army — and  by  doing  so  you,  eo  ipso,  become 
British  subjects,  sharing  all  the  duties  but  also 
all  the  privileges  of  the  natural-born  Briton.  If 
you  prefer,  however,  to  keep  your  Russian  nation- 
ality, and  yet  refuse  to  return  to  your  native  land 
to  perform  your  military  duties  there,  we  must 
consider  you  as  military  deserters  of  an  allied 
nation.  Some  years  ago  we  gave  you  an  asylum 
on  our  hospitable  shores,  but,  alas,  circumstances 
have  changed,  and  we  can  no  longer  harbour  in 
our  midst  military  deserters  of  a  friendly  Power 
at  war  with  our  common  foe.  You  must  leave 
our  shores  and  emigrate  wherever  you  like.  You 
trusted  us  when  you  came  here  years  ago,  and 
we  Britons  never  retract   even  a  tacit  promise. 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        265 

and  even  if  there  be  no  vestige  of  a  scrap  of  paper. 
We  have  no  intention  of  keeping  you  like  mice  in 
a  trap.  Join,  therefore,  the  British  army  as 
British  subjects,  or  leave  Great  Britain,  going 
wherever  you  like,  to  Russia  or  elsewhere,  c'est 
voire  affaire.^^  ' 

However  sad  are  the  circumstances  necessitat- 
ing such  a  step — no  juris- consult  could  have  ques- 
tioned the  legal  and  ethical  right  of  the  British 
Government  to  speak  thus.  To  enlist,  however, 
these  young  men  in  the  British  army  without  at 
once  granting  them  British  citizenship  was  illogical ; 
to  have  transported  them  to  Russia  where,  as  yet, 
they  had  no  rights,  except  those  of  dying  for  their 
native  land,  would  have  been  unethical.  In  the 
meantime  the  Revolution  had  broken  out,  and  the 
Russian  Jews  were  ready  to  fight  in  the  Russian 
or  in  the  British  army,  either  as  Britishers  or  as 
Russians. 

Many  Zionists,  however,  in  appealing  to  these 
Jews  to  enlist  had  strengthened  their  appeal  by 
the  argument  that  in  so  doing  the  recruits  would 
be  helping  the  cause  of  Israel,  lend  strength  to  the 
claims  of  Jewry  to  emancipation  or  an  autonomous 
state.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  vast 
difference  between  sacrificing  our  own  lives  on  the 
altar  of  duty,  and  telling  our  fellow  men  to  give 
their  lives  for  a  great  cause,  so  that  over  their  bodies 
we  may  lead  the  remaining  to  the  goal.  Moses 
himself  never  saw  the  promised  land  ;  he  died  in 
the  desert,  and  only  caught  a  glimpse  of  Palestine 
from  the  heights  of  Pisgah.  Leaders  of  great 
movements  usually  fall  on  the  roadway.  What 
these  Zionists  leaders  were  really  aiming  at  was 
nothing  less  than  buying  Jewish  emancipation,  or 


266        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

a  Jewish  autonomous  state,  and  paying  for  these 
boons  with  the  lives  of  a  few  thousands  of  their 
own  race.  I  confess  that  the  gifts  would  be 
cheap  at  the  price ;  and  just  because  they  would 
be  cheap,  I  am  afraid  that  the  price  would  be 
considered  inadequate.  If  the  price  to  be  paid 
for  Jewish  emancipation  and  a  Jewish  autonomous 
state  are  the  lives  of  so  many  Jews,  then  I  ven- 
ture to  think  the  price  has  already  been  paid,  a 
thousandfold,  long  ago  ! 

But  many  Jews  were  in  favour  of  the  idea  of 
a  few  Jewish  self-seekers,  saviours  of  Israel,  that 
the  15,000  or  20,000  Russian  Jews  in  England 
should  be  enlisted,  formed  into  battalions,  and 
sent  to  Egypt  to  fight  for  and  conquer  Palestine. 
The  idea  is  not  a  new  one ;  and  even  if  it  were 
possible  to  gather  all  the  Jewish  soldiers  from  all 
over  the  world  together  and  send  them  as  a  huge 
army  to  fight  the  Turk  and  conquer  Palestine,  I 
would  not  oppose  it,  but  the  so-called  Zionist 
leaders  seem  to  have  forgotten  one  important 
factor  ;  viz.  that  the  Jews  are  not  gathered  together 
in  one  army,  but  are  scattered  and  serving  in  all 
the  belligerent  armies.  It  is  a  tragic  fact,  but  a 
fact  none  the  less,  and  which  in  their  ardour  these 
Zionist  leaders  seem  to  forget. 

Now  suppose  that  15,000  or  20,000  Jews  are 
sent  out  by  the  Allies — by  England,  to  be  precise — 
to  fight  in  Palestine,  what  is  to  prevent  the  enemy 
in  his  diabolical  cunning,  what  is  to  prevent  the 
modern  Caligula  from  picking  out  a  huge  army 
of  Jews,  preferably  Zionists,  and  sending  them, 
headed  by  some  German  Zionist  leaders,  with  the 
Rabbi  of  Strasburg  as  chaplain,  to  fight  on  the  soil 
of  Palestine  against  the  Jewish  battalions  sent  out 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        267 

by  Great  Britain  or  France  ?  The  mind  positively 
freezes  at  the  thought  of  such  an  event,  but  it  is 
quite  within  the  range  of  possibiHty.  Did  not  the 
Germans  sefid  Bulgarian  detachments  against  Russia  ? 
They  might  equally  well  send  Jews  to  fight  Jews 
on  the  soil  of  Palestine.  It  would  be  a  devilish 
device,  a  tragedy  too  terrible  to  contemplate,  but 
one  which  may  be  expected  from  those  who  com- 
mitted such  unspeakable  atrocities  in  Flanders 
and  Northern  France.  What  is  to  prevent  the 
enemy  from  sending  the  Chief  Rabbi  of  Turkey, 
M.  Naoum,  to  fire  and  stimulate  the  ardour  of  their 
Jewish  battalions  ? 

I  am,  of  course,  aware  that  there  are  many 
Zionists  steeped  in  Realpolitik,  who  readily  scoff 
at  the  Jewish  spirit,  the  ancient  religious  super- 
stition ;  but  then,  the  very  restoration  of  the  Jews 
to  Palestine  is  considered  a  dream  and  a  super- 
stition by  many,  and  the  superstition  of  politics 
has  no  right  to  scoff  at  the  superstition  of  faith. 
The  chasm  yawning  between  the  religious  Jewish 
spirit  and  a  conquest  of  Palestine  by  the  Jews,  as 
a  separate  army,  is  too  vast  to  be  overbridged. 
The  idea  of  a  conquest  of  Palestine,  by  the  Jews, 
is  neither  Jewish  nor  Christian.  It  is  a  German 
and  pagan  doctrine,  based  upon  the  Nietzscheism 
of  the  conquering  blonde  beast. 

It  was  Germany  who  started  this  war  with  a 
view  to  annexation — not  the  Allies.  The  latter 
are  fighting  not  for  new  lands  and  territories,  but 
for  right  and  justice.  France  never  abandoned 
her  claim  to  Alsace-Lorraine,  Italy  never  gave  up 
Trieste;  but  neither  France  nor  Italy  wanted  a 
war,  and  would  never  have  started  it,  had  it  not 
been  forced  upon  them  by  Germany.     But  even 


268        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

if  Christians  sometimes  forget  the  teaching  of  the 
Saviour,  there  is  no  reason  why  Zionists  should 
ignore  the  spirit  of  Judaism,  the  teaching  of 
the  Prophets  which  superseded  the  book  of 
Joshua.  And,  after  all,  the  walls  of  Jericho  did 
not  fall  by  heavy  artillery  but  at  the  blast  of 
the  horn  ! 

"  Germany,"  says  Mr.  Zangwill  rightly,  "  has 
challenged  the  world  on  the  lower  plane  of  matter ; 
she  is  trying  to  assert  herself  in  fire  and  is  writing 
her  edicts  in  blood.  But  fire  burns  down  and 
blood  dries  up  and  fades,  and  the  only  durable 
influence  is  the  power  of  the  spirit."  If  the  Jews, 
I  say,  have  not  disappeared  in  the  dispersion, 
and  Zionists  are  able  to  speak  of  a  Jewish  entity, 
it  is  not  the  result  of  the  Jewish  sword  but  of 
the  spirit,  still  alive.  To  build  up  a  new  Jewish 
state  with  the  sword  is  an  anachronism.  Jews  all 
over  the  world  are  fighting  on  Armageddon's 
battlefields,  and  are  shedding  their  blood,  not  with 
a  view  to  conquests,  but  in  defence  of  their  adopted 
homes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  went  out  to 
fight  not  because  they  expected  emancipation  or 
a  Jewish  autonomous  state  as  a  reward,  but  they 
may  expect  reasonable  human  treatment  all  over 
the  world,  because  they  have  been,  and  are, 
fighting  the  battles  of  civilisation.  Voila  la 
di^irence!  " 

Let  the  advocates  of  Jewish  battalions  conquer- 
ing Palestine  beware  lest  they  put  the  share  the 
Jews  are  taking  in  the  war  on  a  politic  rather 
than  a  patriotic  plane.  The  Jews,  like  the  Chris- 
tians, are  simply  doing  their  duty,  and  the  true 
Jew  does  not  expect  a  reward  for  his  duty.  As 
one  of  Israel's  great  sons,  though  excommunicated 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        26^ 

by  the  Synagogue,  said :  "  Beatitude  non  est 
virtutis  pretium,  sed  ipsa  virtus."  The  Briton  is 
not  fighting  Britain's  battles  because  Greater 
Britain  promised  him  the  fleshpots  of  Egypt,  nor 
is  the  Jew  in  the  AlUed  armies  fighting  because  he 
has  been  promised  the  vineyards  and  fig  trees  of 
Judaea. 

No,  if  I  may  venture  to  make  a  suggestion, 
I  say  that  it  is  right  that  all  the  non-naturalised 
Russian  Jews  in  England  should  enlist  because 
they  owe  a  deep  and  everlasting  debt  of  gratitude 
to  England,  the  home  of  liberty,  the  champion  of 
the  downtrodden  and  oppressed,  but  let  thera 
ask  to  be  sent  to  Flanders  and  France.  Let  them 
go  and  fight  on  the  banks  of  the  Somme  instead 
of  the  Jordan ;  let  them  conquer  Cologne  and 
Berlin  !  Israel  would  then  have  done  her  duty 
in  the  cause  of  civilisation,  and,  I  feel  sure, 
civilised  Christendom  would  not,  could  not,  forget 
it.     Noblesse  oblige. 

Such  are  my  impartial  convictions,  and  I  am 
happy  to  state  that  such  are  also  the  sentiments, 
not  only  of  British  but  also  of  Russian  Jews — 
those  mostly  concerned  in  the  matter.  Russian 
Jews,  who  may  claim  the  title  of  pioneers  of  the 
Russian  Revolution,  who  have  largely  contributed 
to  its  triumph  and  to  the  overthrow  of  autocracy, 
could  not  belie  their  attitude  of  the  past.  They 
were  bound  to  deprecate  the  idea  of  a  Jewish  regi- 
ment sent  out  to  conquer  Palestine  for  the  Zionists, 
not  only  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  but  also  for 
the  Zionists  of  Germany,  Austria,  Bulgaria  and 
Turkey.  However,  one  of  the  gentlemen  mainly^ 
responsible  for  the  formation  of  a  Jewish  regiment 
for   the   object   of   conquering    Palestine   for   the- 


270         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Jews — as  Jews — assured  us  that  "  there  is  nothing 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  present  war  to  justify 
the  apprehension  of  Germany  or  Turkey  also 
forming  a  Jewish  regiment  and  sending  it  to 
defend  Palestine  against  the  British  invader  and 
his  Jewish  regiment."  ^  He  felt  quite  convinced 
that  Germany — the  land  of  Kultur — was  above 
such  a  trick  !  "It  would  have  been  very  easy," 
he  wrote,  "  for  Germany  to  form  battalions  of 
Alsatians,  to  give  them  all  the  paraphernalia  of 
'  national '  regiments,  and  to  send  them  against 
the  French  in  order  to  show  the  world  that 
Alsatians  themselves  opposed  the  re-annexation  of 
Alsace  by  France.  But  Germany  did  not  try  the 
trick ;  on  the  contrary,  she  preferred  to  send  her 
Alsatian  soldiers  to  frontiers  where  they  would 
meet  other,  not  French,  adversaries.  Nor  did 
Austria,  with  her  Italian  soldiers,  or  Turkey,  with 
her  myriads  of  Armenians,  try  the  trick." 

These  statements  are  very  interesting  and 
illuminating,  but  I  wonder  if  the  writer  has  really 
measured  the  significance  of  his  words.  Let  us 
read  them  attentively.  In  the  first  place  this 
saviour  of  Judah  reveals  himself  as  a  very  advo- 
catus  diaboli  (diabolus  being  equivalent  in  this 
case  to  Austria,  Germany,  Bulgaria  and  Turkey). 
The  Central  Empires  and  Turkey,  he  maintains, 
and  he  must  have  good  cause  for  his  emphatic 
declaration,  are  above  a  trick, ^  the  very  same  trick 
which  he  was  advising  the  Entente  Powers  to  make 

^  Cf.  Jewish  Chronicle ^  August  17th,  1917,  p.  15. 

2  Look  up  any  dictionary  and  you  will  find  the  following 
definition  of  the  word  trick  :  "  An  artifice,  a  stratagem,  an 
artful  device,  an  underhand  scheme,  a  vicious,  foolish  action  or 
practice.  Anything  mischievous  and  roguishly  done  to  cross 
and  disappoint  another. 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        271 

use  of,  namely,  to  form  a  Jewish  regiment  so  as 
to  show  the  world  that  Jewry,  as  a  national  unit, 
is  on  the  side  of  the  Entente  Powers.  I  am 
sorry  I  cannot  share  this  gentleman's  faith  in 
the  noble  intentions  of  William  Hohenzollern  or 
his  appreciations  of  Germany's  fair  play.  I  am 
rather  inclined  to  think  with  President  Wilson  that 
''  the  Kaiser  has  never  allowed  himself  to  be 
stopped  by  any  considerations  of  justice  or 
pity,"  that  "  he  has  pulled  down  all  the  barriers 
of  morality  which  he  has  met  on  his  way." 
There  is  no  reason  to  presume  that  what  this 
modern  Caligula  has  been  guilty  of  in  the  past, 
he  will  hesitate  to  commit  in  the  future,  once 
it  is  in  his  interest  to  do  so.  He  will  only  have 
as  his  excuse  the  power  to  say  :  "  You  tried  it 
first  !  " 

But  the  arguments  of  the  advocatus  of  Kultur 
contain  even  more  weighty  and  significant  words, 
that  affect  not  only  the  Kaiser  and  Kultur,  but  the 
Jews  all  over  the  world.  "  Nor  can  I  believe," 
the  instigator  of  a  Jewish  regiment  told  us,  "  that 
the  German  Jews  would  countenance  such  a 
trick."  Again  a  certificate  of  nobility  for  German 
Jews,  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews  of  the 
Entente  Powers.  The  German  Zionists  would 
refuse  ''  to  fight  against  a  regime  friendly  to 
Zionism  for  the  conservation  of  an  order  of  things 
forbidding  Jews  to  colonise  theHoly  Land."  ^  The 
''  very  idea  seems  to  him  to  be  preposterous." 
Now,  if  the  German  Jews  are  wielding  such  a 
mighty  power  in  the  land,  and  can  either  fight, 
or  refuse  to  do  so,  as  it  pleases  them,  why  then, 
I    ask,    did    they   not    refuse    to    march    against 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  August  17th,  1917,  p.  15. 


272         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

Belgium ;  why  did  they  lend  their  assistance  to 
the  invasion  of  that  brave  little  country  ? 

Moreover,  this  gentleman  is  evidently  not  aware 
that  in  his  frankness  he  has  "  let  the  cat  out  of 
the  bag  "  as  far  as  he  himself  is  concerned.  It  is 
very  evident  that  for  him  the  loyalty  of  the 
Jews  to  their  respective  countries  is  only  condi- 
tional. It  is  the  result  of  a  bargain  made  with 
the  Governments  of  the  belligerent  countries. 
They  are  on  the  side  of  the  best  bidder.  The 
Zionists  are  on  the  side  of  the  Entente  Powers 
because  the  Entente  Powers  are  not  only  going 
to  be  victorious,  but  also  because  they  are  friendly 
to  Jewish  national  aspirations  and  will  "  secure 
the  realisation  of  Zionism."  And  if  it  were  not 
so — if  for  some  reason  or  another  the  Entente 
Powers  were  not  friendly  to  Zionism — then  on  which 
side  would  these  advocates  of  Jewish  regiments 
be  ?  I  wonder  !  Anyhow,  I  consider  such  state- 
ments and  the  issues  they  raise  as  a  gross  libel 
upon,  and  insult  to,  the  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
Jews  who  are  fighting  on  Armageddon's  battle- 
fields unco7iditionally !  The  Jew,  his  whole  his- 
tory proves  it,  is  never  on  the  side  of  the  victor 
because  the  latter  is  the  victor,  but  because  he 
represents  justice,  momentarily  triumphant  or  not. 

Let  us  suppose — a  mere  supposition — ^that  the 
Central  Powers  had  been  victorious  and  that 
Turkey  had  maintained  her  power  in  the  Holy 
Land,  and  that  these  victors  had  declared  them- 
selves favourable  to  the  creation  of  a  Jewish 
autonomous  state  in  Palestine  ?  Would  these 
advocates  be  on  the  side  of  the  victorious  Central 
Powers  or  of  the  beaten  Entente  ? — both  animated 
by    friendly    intentions.      As    a    matter    of   fact. 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        273 

both  the  Central  Powers  and  Turkey  are  now- 
favourable  to  the  idea  of  creating  a  Jewish  auto- 
nomous state  in  Palestine,  and  even  Djemal  Pasha 
has  changed  his  views  on  the  subject/  It  is  also 
significant  that  the  cry  for  a  British  Protectorate 
in  Palestine  was  only  raised  by  certain  Zionists 
when  the  British  troops  were  at  Gaza  and  the 
probability  of  their  entering  Jerusalem  became  a 
certainty.  Up  till  then  the  advocates  were  silent ; 
they  were  biding  their  time,  waiting  until  fortune 
had  declared  herself,  and  in  the  meantime  they 
allowed  the  Lichtheims  and  Jacobsons  to  pull  the 
strings.* 

I  could  largely  expatiate  upon  this  question, 
and  quote  numerous  passages  from  the  Jewish 
press  and  the  Zionist  activity  since  August  1st, 
1914,  but  in  this  chapter  I  am  not  dealing  with 
Zionism,  but  with  the  Jews  of  Russia.  Suffice  it, 
therefore,  to  say  that  I  merely  wish  to  record  my 
own  humble  but  emphatic  protest  against,  and 
deprecation  of,  those  Jews  who  were  advocating 
a  Jewish  battalion  for  the  conquest  of  Palestine, 
and  thus  putting  the  share  the  Jews  are  taking 
in  this  world  war  on  a  politic  rather  than  a  patriotic 
plane. 

These  agitators,  besides  showing  their  manifest 
ignorance  of  the  real  Jewish  spirit  and  its  pas- 
sionate attachment  to  justice,  have  rendered  but 
little  service  to  Judaism,  or  even  to  Zionism, 
which  is,  after  all,  an  internationally-national 
movement.  One  feels  even  inclined  to  think 
that  such  agitators  are,  at  the  bottom  of  their 
hearts,  not  Zionists  at  all,   as  I  understand   the 

1  Cf.  Le  Pays,  August  30th,  1917. 
«  Ibid. 

18 


274         THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

movement,  and  as  only  a  few  Zionists  seem  to 
understand  it/ 

It  is  futile  to  attempt  to  reconcile  sentiments 
and  ideals  which  are  in  themselves  antagonistic 
and  cannot  be  reconciled.  That  is  what  some  of 
the  Jewish  agitators  are  endeavouring  to  do : 
they  maintain,  on  the  one  hand,  that  it  is  natural 
for  Jews,  as  Jews,  to  fight  for  Jews  (Jews  in 
all  belligerent  countries  I  assume)  getting  Pales- 
tine,* whilst  on  the  other  hand  they  pretend  that 
the  Jews  all  over  the  world  are  loyal  to  their 
respective  countries  of  adoption,  or  birth,  and 
have  the  interests  of  these  countries,  which  are 
necessarily  antagonistic,  at  heart.  For  my  own 
part,  I  fail  to  see  how  these  two  statements  can 
be  reconciled.  One  must  choose  between  them. 
Either  the  Jews  are  a  separate  nation  or  they  are 
not.  If  Israel  be  a  separate  nation,  and  all  its 
scattered  members — whether  in  belligerent  or  in 
neutral  countries — constitute  one  national  unit, 
then  the  Jews,  to  be  logical  with  themselves,  if 
they  wish  to  have  a  commonwealth  of  their  own 
in  Palestine,  must,  first  of  all,  consider  the  interests 
of  their  own  nation,  irrespective  of  the  possible 
interests  of  any  European  Power.  The  announce- 
ment therefore  of  the  British  Zionists  who  pro- 
claim urbi  et  orbi,  now  that  Great  Britain  is 
victorious  in  Palestine,  that  they  are  anxious  to 
have  an  autonomous  state  in  the  Holy  Land  as 
a  British  Protectorate,  becomes  a  mere  empty 
boast.  Every  loyal  British  citizen,  whether  Jew 
or   Gentile,   naturally  prefers  the  Holy  Land  to 

1  We  refer  to  men  like  Dr.  M.  Gaster,  Dr.  Daiches  and  the 
late  Dr.  Tshlenov. 

2  Jewish  Chronicle f  August  17th,  1917, 


I 


ISRAEL'S   CRY  FOR  JUSTICE        275 

belong  to  Great  Britain  rather  than  to  Turkey. 
There  we  are  all  Zionists,  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Jews  all  over  the 
world  are,  first  of  all,  loyal  citizens  of  the  countries 
of  their  birth  or  adoption  and  have  the  interests 
of  these  countries  at  heart,  then  it  follows,  logically, 
that  the  British  Zionists  who  are  anxious  to  have 
an  autonomous  state  in  Palestine  under  British 
protection,  are  certainly  loyal  British  subjects, 
but  that  the  Zionists  in  the  Central  Empires,  who 
agree  to  it,  are  not  loyal  citizens  of  their  countries. 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  blame  them  for  it ;  but  I 
cannot  help  observing  that  if  citizens,  whilst 
enjoying  citizen  rights  in  one  country,  are  disloyal 
to  it,  they  can  hardly  be  trusted  to  be  loyal  to 
another.  Again,  they  might  endeavour  to  make 
the  influence  of  the  country  of  their  birth  pre- 
dominant in  their  new  home.  This  is  the  dilemma 
which  men  who  try  to  reconcile  antagonistic  senti- 
ments are  consciously,  or  unconsciously,  creating 
in  the  minds  of  impartial  observers  and  students 
of  history.  • 

I  may  prove  to  have  been  a  false  prophet,  but 
I  certainly  feel  that  a  Zionism  built,  ab  ovo,  upon 
contradictory  and  even  antagonistic  principles 
may  ultimately  split  upon  the  rock  of  Jewish  loyalty 
and  allegiance  to  the  countries  of  their  birth  or 
adoption.  Time  will  show.  Anyhow,  I  cannot 
but  applaud  the  attitude  of  the  Russian  Jews  in 
Great  Britain  who  declared  that  they  were  anxious 
to  serve  either  as  Russians  or  as  Englishmen,  but 
not  as  Jews.  The  Russian  Jews,  the  pioneers  of 
the  Revolution,  who  have  been  suffering  and 
fighting  for  freedom  and  justice  against  Tsardom 
and  oppression,  could  not  do  otherwise.      They  are 

18* 


276        THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 

now  continuing  to  fight  for  the  cause  of  justice, 
for  the  principles  of  democracy  against  German 
mihtarism.  They  have  made  cause  commune  with 
all  the  other  defenders  of  democracy,  no  matter 
who  makes  the  best  bid  to  Israel,  as  a  national  unit 
or  as  an  ethnic  group. 


i 


I 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

In  addition  to  the  books  quoted  in  the  text,  the  follow- 
ing works  have  been  consulted  for  the  compilation  of  the 
present  volume. 

Amfiteatrov,  A.  :    La  race  nuisible.     Paris,  1907. 

Andreas,   A.  :    Feuer.     Leipzig,   1903. 

Bakounine,  P.  :    CEuvrcs,  6  vols.     Paris,  1903-13. 

Basilevski :  Gosudarstvcnnia  prcsluplenia  v.  Rossiu. 
Stuttgart,  1903. 

Biloe  (Past),  1906,  1907. 

Biographies  Rivolutionnaires. 

Bogatina,  S.  :    Beitraege.     Bonn,  1907. 

Bulow,  H.  V.  :  Die  Revolution  in  Russlcmd.     Wien,  1905. 

Burtsev,  Za  sto  lijet.     London,  1897. 

Dmitriev-Mamonov,  A.  T.  :  Dekabristi.  St.  Peters- 
burg, 1905. 

Eckhardt,  J.  :    Jungrussisch.     Leipzig,  1871. 

Funck-Brentano  :    Les  sophistes  Frangais.     Paris,  1905. 

Gerschuni,  G. :  Aus-jiingster  Vergangenheit.    Berlin,  1909. 

Herzen,  A.  :     Works.     Geneva,  1875-85. 

Iskra.     Geneva,  1904. 

Kalendarj  narodnoy  voli,  1883. 

Katenin:    Otsherki,  etc.     1906. 

Kropotkin,  P.  :    Zapiski.     St.  Petersburg,  1906. 

Kulczycki,  L.  :    Geschichte  der  russ.  Revol.     Gotha,  1910. 

Lavrov,   P.  :    Narodniki  propagandisti.     1895-96. 

Libanov,  G.  M.  :  The  Student  Movement  in  Russia. 
London,  1901. 

Lombroso,  C.  :    Le  crime  politique.     2  vols. 

Materiali  (Material  for  history  of  Russian  Revolution), 
1893-6. 

Ivlelnik,  J.  :  Russen  uber  Russland.  Frankfurt-am- 
Main,  1906. 

277 


278  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Messager  de  la  volonU  du  peuple,  1883,  1884. 

Michelet,  E.  J. :  Essai  sur  la  Revolution  Riisse.  Paris, 
1907. 

Mikhailov,  A.  :    Nikolay  I.     London,  1906. 

Moukha,  1906.. 

Narodnaya  revoliisionnaya  biblioteka,   1000-1902. 

Nevinson,  H.  W.  :   The  Dawn  of  Russia.     London,  1905. 

Obshtshestvennya  dvizhenia  v.  Rossiu.  St.  Petersburg, 
1905. 

Orlov,  P.  :    Russkaya  Revohitsia.     1905-1906. 

Perris,  G.  H.  :    Russia  in  Revolution.     London,  1905. 

Petrunkewitsh,  T.  T.  :  Zur  Agrarbewcgung.  Leipzig, 
1907. 

Plekhanov,  G.  :    Russkiy  Rabotshiy.     Geneva,  1902. 

Pyipin  :    Die  geistigen  Bewcgungen;     1894. 

Rappoport,  A.  S.  :  The  Curse  of  the  Romanovs.  Lon- 
don, 1907. 

Revolutsionnaya  Rossia.     Geneva,  1903-1904. 

Romanoff,  E.  :  Die  revolutionnaire  Bewegung.  Heidel- 
berg, 1910. 

SemenofT,  E.  :  Une  page  de  la  contre-r6volution  russe. 
Paris,  1906. 

Shilder,  N.  K.  :  Tsarstvovanie  Imperaiora  Nikolaya  /. 
St.  Petersburg,  1901. 

Shtshegolev,  P.  E.  :  A.  S.  Griboyedov  i  dekabristi.  St. 
Petersburg,  1905. 

Trotsky,  L.  :  Nasha  revoluietsia.     St.  Petersburg,  1907. 

Tshernyslievski,  N.  G.  :    Works.     Vevey,  1868-70. 

Vietsnik  Russkoy  Revoluitsii.     Geneva,  1905. 

Vpered,  1873. 

Vrba,  R.  :  Die  Revolution  in  Russland,  2  vols. 
Prague,  1906. 

Weber,  M.  :    Istoritsheskiy  Otsherk.     Kiev,  1906. 

Zavalishin,  D.  T.  :  Zapiski  dekabrista^  2  vols.  Munich, 
1904. 

Ziliacus,  K.  :  The  Russian  Revolutionary  Movement. 
London,  1907. 


INDEX 


Agrarian  problem,   24 

Alexander  I,  65 

Alexander  II,  106,  126  ;  mani- 
festo of,  149 

Alexinsky,  26 

Alexis  Mikhailovitsh,  reign  of, 
53 

Araktsheev,  06 

Axelrod,  26 

Babeuf,  on  French  Revolu- 
tion, 19 

Bakmiin,  23,  38,  153,  161-78 

Balkan  War,  203 

Bardoux,  on  French  Revolu- 
tion, 11 

Benedict  XV,  29 

Bereshkovskaya,  196 

Berlin  Revolution,  120 

Bestuzhev-Marlinsky,   141 

Blanqui,  24 

Bluntschli,  on  Revolution,  2 

Bolsheviki,  25 

Bouchez,  on  French  Revolu- 
tion, 23 

Boyarins,  52,  57 

Bund,  The,  27,  250,  251 

Buntari,  197 

Bureaucracy,  German,  in  Rus- 
sia, 58 

Byelinsky,  141 

Byzantine  Christianity  in  I^us- 
sia,  47 

Cabet,  on  French  Revolution, 

23 
Cadets,  25 

Cahiers  des  doleances,  11,  17 
Catastrophic  idea,  6 


Catherine  II,  50,  135,  237,  240 

Ch'\teaubriand,     on     Revolu- 
tion, 2 

Chesterfield,  135 

Christians,  15 

Church  and  State,  struggle  be 
tween,  54 

Commune,  The  Paris,  189 

Congresses,    Socialist    interna- 
tionalist, 28 

Constantine,  77 

Constituent  Assembly,  33 

Cossacks,  52 

Crimean  War,  123 

Dostoievski,  121,   141 
Dufournoy     de     VlUiers,     on 

French  Revolution,  21 
Duma,     First,      26 ;      Second, 

26;    Third,  26 

Encyclopcedists,  30 
Engels,  23,  24 

"  Fedei'alism,"  idea  of,  32,  35 

Feuerbach,  164 

Figner,  Vera,  209,  225,  226 

Finland,  34 

France,  Bakunin  on,  177 

Freemasonry,   136 

CTcrmany,  Bakunin  on,  177 
Gershouni,  251 
Ginsburg,  Sophie,  223,  226 
Girondins,  17,  33 
GHnka,  Theodor,  71 
Gogol,  143,   14t 
Gradovsky,  235,  237 
Griboyedov,  139,  144 


279 


280 


INDEX 


Grinetzky,  211 

Guizot,   on  the  French  Revo- 
lution, 9 

Harkavy,  Professor,  235 

Hebrews,  15 

Hegel,     philosophical    system, 

144,  156.  162,  163 
Herzen,   Alexander,    112,    116, 

126,  138,  145-50,  186 
Holy  Alliance,  67 

Individualism,  260 

Integral  Socialism,  160 

Internationale,  The,  177,  190 

Internationalisrn,  14,  27 

Ipatovstsi,  187 

Italian     national     movement, 

1848,  31 
Ivan  Grozny,  51 

Jacobins,  18 

Jakubovitsh,  73,  82.  87,  91 

Jewish  question,  246 ;  regi- 
ment, 262 

Jews,  132  ;  Russian,  aims  of, 
245  ;  psychology  of,  230  ; 
sense  of  justice,  256,  259 

Jingoism,  29 

Judaism,  spirit  of,  261 

Karakasov,  187 
Karamzin,  66 
Khazars,  234 
Kornilovitsh,  76 
Kropotkin,  Peter,  193 

Landed  proprietors,  128 

Lassalle,  23 

Lavrov,  23,  25,  37,  156-01 

Ledru-Rollin,  147 

Lenin,  25 

Lermontov,  143 

Lettish     Social     Democratic 

party,  27 
Liberalism  in  Russia,  62 
Liberals,  25 
Lithuania,  Jews  of,  236 
Lobanov-Bostovski,  78 


Lopatin,  Herman,  157,  221, 
223 

Lorer,  75 
Lunin,  98,  103 

Malikovtsi,  197 

Malon,  B.,  160 

Martov.  25 

Marx,  Karl,  doctrines  of,  23, 
24,  29,  157,  173,  175,  221 

INFasonic  influence,  70 

Matinintsi,  187 

Mazzini,  147,  171,  173 

Menshoviki,  25 

Militarism,  28 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  on  Revolu- 
tion, 2,  3 

Miloradovitsh,  78 

"  Mir,"  25 

Mlodetsky,  251 

Mongol  invasion,  influence  of 
the,  49 

Mouraviev,  70,  76,  108,  110 

Napoleon,  30  ;   and  Nicholas  I, 

115 
Napoleonic  Wars,  30 
Narodnaya  Volya,  209,  222 
Narodniki,  199 
Nationalism,  14 
Nationality,    principle    of,    30, 

31,   35 
"  Nations,  League  of,"  67 
Nicholas  I,  76 
Nietshaev,  191,  194,  197 
Nihilism,   152-5 
Nikon,  Patriarch,  54,  55 
Novgorod,  43,  51 
Novikov,  136 

Odoievsky,  Prince,  139 
"  Officers,  Union  of,"  25 
Ogarev,    145 
Old  Russia,  44 
Orthodox  Church,  53,  132 
Ossinski,  V.,  200,  208 
Oukrivateli,  210 
Owen,  Robert,  23 


INDEX 


^81 


Palestine,  conquest  of,  268, 272 

Pascal,  155 

Peasants,  52 

Perovskaya,  209,  211 

Pestel,  70,  72,  75,  97,  112,  115 

Peter  the  Great,  55,  56 

Petrashevski,  1 1 9 

Pissarev,    155 

Plato,  14,  15 

Plekhanov,  24,  25,  26 

Poland,  34,  68 

Polezhaev,  140 

Polish  Revolution,  184 

Pougatshev,  59,  130 

Proudhon,  163 

Provisional      government      in 

Russia,  34 
Pskov,  43 
Pushkin,  142,  143 

Radishtshev,  137 

Raskol,  54 

Rationalism,   152 

Razanov,  26 

Razin,  Stenka,  55,  130 

Realism,  152 

Reclus,  E.,  on  Revolution,  2,  8 

Revolution,   French,    1789-93, 

24,  30,  32,  35,  113,  238 
Romanov,  Mikhail,  Tsar,  53 
Rosen,  Baron,  82 
Rostovtsev,  79 
Rousseau,  J.  J.,  38,  135,  137, 

165 
Russo-Turkish  War,  200 
Ryleev,  72,  77,  82,  88,  97,  98, 

139 
Ryssakov,'  211 

Saratovtsi,  187 
Sassoulitsh,  Vera,  205 
Schluesselburg,    fortress,    220, 

223    227 
Semlya  i  Volya,  183,  198,  207, 

208 
Semski  Sobor,  52,  56 


Seraphim,  Metropolitan,  91 
Serfs,    freedom    of    the,    1801, 

Feb.  19th,  127 
Serno-Solovyevitsh,  182 
Sietsh,  destruction  of,  59 
Social  Democrats,  24,  25,  26, 

39 
Socialism,  14,  22,  27,  155 
Soldiers,  council  of,  24 
Soldiers  and  Sailors,  union  of, 

25 
Sombart,  W.,  28 
"  Sons  of  the  Fatherland,"  70 
Soviet,  24 

Speransky,  ^Michael,  65,  81 
Stael,  Mme  de,  30 
Stankevitsh,    IGl 
Sticklov,  26 

Taine,  on  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, 8 

Tkatshev,  199 

Tourgeniev,  63,  64,  153 

Troubetzkoy,  72,  83,  90,  97 

Tsar,  51 

Tsardom,  42 

Tshaikovtsi,  193,  197 

Tshernov,  Victor,  25 

Tshernyshevski,  150,  180,  183, 
186,  221 

Ukraine,  The,  34,  150,  236 
Universities,  Russian,  181 

Venevitinov,  140 
Virtue,  Society  of,  "  Northern 
and  Southern  Leagues,"  70 
Vyborg  Manifesto,  26 

Yakushkin,  99 

Zhelyabov,    209 
Ziemstvos,   185 
Zionism,  265,  271.  272 
Znamya  Trouda,  25 


PRINTED  BT 

HA.ZELL,  WATSON   AND  VINEY,  LD., 

tONDON  AND   AYLE3BURY. 


i^XX^XUf  XIX^   X>XlJJV/VV 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $t.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


MAR  22  ^a; 


v» 


Mlfi   151942 


f/lAy 


M 


-f^ft 


wi"*  '003  aojj 


f> 


-  ^1 '  ' ." 


\^0e^   -  


9J^1 


^"SOBM 


RKC'D  LP 


UZJJ 


]  1  i    l 


KJyJ>.. 


f^¥/ 


u 


ij 


•i>'b4-7-PiVi 


MAY  4  -  1968  5  ^- 


LD  21-5m-l,'39(7053s7) 


U  C  BERKELEY  LIBRAR 


ES 


CDS1117TSb 


^^0  1  DK^  6^ 

Job  1^1       -^  s 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


